The only thing I can think of is if god would reveal himself to us. Other than that I can't think of any.
I think the best reason is to just accept that God cannot be proven, and name faith as the reason for believing. While it's not logical, I would never deny that a person has such faith. For me, it's only when believer tries to prove god exists, that logical arguments come into play. If a person believes it because he believes it, it adds no credibility to the existence of god. It's not even an argument, but I accept that the person is sincere, although not very good at reasoning.
Because you want to or it makes you feel good is generally a good enough reason for me, so long as you don't force it on anyone else.
First we have to define what a god is. Cue in Hijiri and his post about Q from Startrek
When a deity represents the community unity, particularly in a warfare situation ... it can help galvanize the troops. Ares, Mars, Allah, Yahweh and the Constantinian version of Jesus ... Christos Pantokrator ... are war gods. Though not all community projects are violent.
Nationalism and patriotism in its modern form, has reduced the need for this.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 13, 2016, 03:53:23 PM
First we have to define what a god is. Cue in Hijiri and his post about Q from Startrek
Star Trek and Star Wars are mythology for modern folks.
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2016, 08:28:29 PM
Star Trek and Star Wars are mythology for modern folks.
Star Trek? Yes. Many lessons about the world around us and it can be seen as a mythology of sorts. Star Wars though? Nah. not so much.
Doctor Who would also be something that can be seen as a religion of sorts
"Hey, God. You real?"
"Yup."
"Oh, wow. You actually answered."
"Well, yeah. I wouldn't expect people to believe in me without any evidence at all that I even exist. That'd be a dick thing to do."
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 13, 2016, 11:09:12 PM
"Hey, God. You real?"
"Yup."
"Oh, wow. You actually answered."
"Well, yeah. I wouldn't expect people to believe in me without any evidence at all that I even exist. That'd be a dick thing to do."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-8-n2_rW6o
Oh ho hooo. I am a trickster god. I am killing me.
First of all which god are we talking about? Now with Odin you get shield maidens, with Allah you get 72 virgins. With the Mormon god you get your own planet and beaucoup wives; with Yahweh you get what, eternal supper with Jesus? How many times you want Blueberry pie with ice cream? What, no women? Blame that on them damn Catholics. A good reason would be a god that actually did something, like maybe water your lawn while you sleep or arrange for money in your wallet when you need it.
Afraid I'm too far gone in my atheism to think a god can actually provide anything useful.
Btw, do you notice a theme there? Seems religion is big on providing women in the afterlife. So apparently the creators of the religion(s) were all horny men.
Quote from: stromboli on August 14, 2016, 10:34:01 AM
First of all which god are we talking about? Now with Odin you get shield maidens, with Allah you get 72 virgins. With the Mormon god you get your own planet and beaucoup wives; with Yahweh you get what, eternal supper with Jesus? How many times you want Blueberry pie with ice cream? What, no women? Blame that on them damn Catholics. A good reason would be a god that actually did something, like maybe water your lawn while you sleep or arrange for money in your wallet when you need it.
Afraid I'm too far gone in my atheism to think a god can actually provide anything useful.
Btw, do you notice a theme there? Seems religion is big on providing women in the afterlife. So apparently the creators of the religion(s) were all horny men.
With the exception of Christianity, which treats chastity as something holy, even for men. When you go to Heaven, you don't even get to keep the wife you had in life.
Quote from: stromboli on August 14, 2016, 10:34:01 AM
First of all which god are we talking about? Now with Odin you get shield maidens, with Allah you get 72 virgins. With the Mormon god you get your own planet and beaucoup wives; with Yahweh you get what, eternal supper with Jesus? How many times you want Blueberry pie with ice cream? What, no women? Blame that on them damn Catholics. A good reason would be a god that actually did something, like maybe water your lawn while you sleep or arrange for money in your wallet when you need it.
Afraid I'm too far gone in my atheism to think a god can actually provide anything useful.
Btw, do you notice a theme there? Seems religion is big on providing women in the afterlife. So apparently the creators of the religion(s) were all horny men.
Oops, misspelled word there Strom--you meant 'holy' men--right????
Well, OP, I cannot think of one single good reason to believe in god. And a 'belief' it would have to be since there is not a shred of evidence otherwise.
Quote from: doorknob on August 13, 2016, 02:28:20 PM
The only thing I can think of is if god would reveal himself to us. Other than that I can't think of any.
There would be a need for such a being to prove that it is, indeed, a god as we understand the term.
My first question for such a being would be "why do you suddenly feel the need to reveal yourself."
My second question would be "why does a god need a spaceship?"
Quote from: stromboli link=topic=10576.msg11/ 44023#msg1144023 date=1471185241
First of all which god are we talking about? Now with Odin you get shield maidens, with Allah you get 72 virgins. With the Mormon god you get your own planet and beaucoup wives; with Yahweh you get what, eternal supper with Jesus? How many times you want Blueberry pie with ice cream? What, no women? Blame that on them damn Catholics. A good reason would be a god that actually did something, like maybe water your lawn while you sleep or arrange for money in your wallet when you need it.
Afraid I'm too far gone in my atheism to think a god can actually provide anything useful.
Btw, do you notice a theme there? Seems religion is big on providing women in the afterlife. So apparently the creators of the religion(s) were all horny men.
Could you handle even one shield maiden/Valkyrie? Really!
Perhaps the best argument for God is his divine creation exemplified by the perfection of man. There can be no other explanation.
well I was talking about a non specific god. I already know that all the world religions got it wrong. I was just thinking about it and wondered if there was some kind of reason to believe in a god since so many people do believe in one. But I want an example of a good reason not a shitty one as many Christians/ any one have so far.
I would ask a god if there was one and it finally revealed itself why it took so long to show up and what was it doing all this time any way? Well I have many more questions than that but those are the ones I'd start with.
Take a realistic look at nature. They ask ---Why so cruel?
The 'argument' theists make for god's existance is so often how I see a child telling other children in the playground their daddy is the best and can do anything, then when another kid tells him he isn't, or another kid says his daddies better, the original kid flips out and can't process the idea that anyone else other then he daddy can be amazing.
This kind of mentaliy I see carries into adulthood, where the daddy is god, and these people have a mental block to thinking their daddy-god could be anything besides perfect.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 15, 2016, 08:58:44 AM
Take a realistic look at nature. They ask ---Why so cruel?
G-d isn't Santa, he is a Monster.
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2016, 06:34:16 PM
G-d isn't Santa, he is a Monster.
A fiction, but still a monster--agree.
If God revealed himself to me, I'd assume that I had either :
1. Been spiked with some kind of hallucinogen
or
2. Gone insane.
Quote from: Duncle on August 16, 2016, 08:50:52 AM
If God revealed himself to me, I'd assume that I had either :
1. Been spiked with some kind of hallucinogen
or
2. Gone insane.
But, but... He's revealed himself so many times to others. Why would your revelation be the fake one?
Quote from: doorknob on August 15, 2016, 08:40:41 AM
well I was talking about a non specific god. I already know that all the world religions got it wrong. I was just thinking about it and wondered if there was some kind of reason to believe in a god since so many people do believe in one. But I want an example of a good reason not a shitty one as many Christians/ any one have so far.
I would ask a god if there was one and it finally revealed itself why it took so long to show up and what was it doing all this time any way? Well I have many more questions than that but those are the ones I'd start with.
The explanation for god that I like the best is we are all god. The physical universe is god and as conscious beings we are the part god that can reflect on itself. When it comes to a belief in god this is about the best I can do.
https://youtu.be/mMRrCYPxD0I
Quote from: doorknob on August 13, 2016, 02:28:20 PM
The only thing I can think of is if god would reveal himself to us. Other than that I can't think of any.
That wouldn't make me believe. If God came to me personally, it could be a hallucination. If God appeared in the sky and everyone had the same experience, it could be a false flag by the government. Even if something came up to throw the theory of evolution in doubt, a designer wouldn't necessarily mean a "God". We're probably living in a computer simulation anyways, and I don't consider the programmer to be "God".
The best reason I can imagine for believing in "God" would be the fear of death, or brain damage.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 15, 2016, 07:31:13 PM
A fiction, but still a monster--agree.
We are all fiction. See Matrix. But you at least are not a monster ... Monsters Inc would be cool however. I have a coworker who could play the tall furry blue guy.
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2016, 06:41:35 PM
We are all fiction. See Matrix. But you at least are not a monster ... Monsters Inc would be cool however. I have a coworker who could play the tall furry blue guy.
Maybe we are all fiction. Then god would be a fiction of a fiction.
Materialists don't follow Alan Watts .. enlightened beings do ;-)
If we are a program, the programmer might not seem to be god to you, until your subroutine gets deleted. Aren't you afraid of the MS registry apocalypse? I had a work computer that actually happened to. Made a believer out of me ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 16, 2016, 06:45:09 PM
Maybe we are all fiction. Then god would be a fiction of a fiction.
Didn't know you were a Zen Buddhist ;-)
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on August 16, 2016, 01:50:41 PM
That wouldn't make me believe. If God came to me personally, it could be a hallucination. If God appeared in the sky and everyone had the same experience, it could be a false flag by the government. Even if something came up to throw the theory of evolution in doubt, a designer wouldn't necessarily mean a "God". We're probably living in a computer simulation anyways, and I don't consider the programmer to be "God".
The best reason I can imagine for believing in "God" would be the fear of death, or brain damage.
That's it--whether or not it is a good reason, the fear of death is why people created god.
Quote from: doorknob on August 13, 2016, 02:28:20 PM
The only thing I can think of is if god would reveal himself to us. Other than that I can't think of any.
Tangible, repeatable, no-bars-held, evidence.
I won't hold my breath.
Quote from: doorknob on August 13, 2016, 02:28:20 PM
The only thing I can think of is if god would reveal himself to us. Other than that I can't think of any.
The only reason anyone ever had for believing in any gods is to disguise ignorance as knowledge. Can't explain it? Explain it anyway.
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 17, 2016, 07:37:16 AM
Tangible, repeatable, no-bars-held, evidence.
I won't hold my breath.
That's exactly what God offers.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 01:56:35 PM
That's exactly what God offers.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Really??? Care to share some of that???
This comes when you have a real relationship with Him. Not Religion. For one God protects is own. And if you are his own and you go through a hard time he guides you in the right direction.
Now this may seem far fetched for many but for those whom experienced it first hand. Its reality.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2016, 06:45:09 PM
Materialists don't follow Alan Watts .. enlightened beings do ;-)
If we are a program, the programmer might not seem to be god to you, until your subroutine gets deleted. Aren't you afraid of the MS registry apocalypse? I had a work computer that actually happened to. Made a believer out of me ;-)
QuoteAn apocalypse (Ancient Greek: ἀποκάλÏ...ψιÏ, apokálypsis, from ἀπό and καλÏÏ€Ï,,ω meaning "uncovering"), translated literally from Greek, is a disclosure of knowledge, i.e., a lifting of the veil or revelation.
The word apocalypse is often misused to mean a catastrophic end of something, e.g., the world. Can I assume that's the sense you intend here?
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 02:26:47 PM
This comes when you have a real relationship with Him. Not Religion. For one God protects is own. And if you are his own and you go through a hard time he guides you in the right direction.
Now this may seem far fetched for many but for those whom experienced it first hand. Its reality.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
I see, then what you are talking about is simply subjective. You cannot produce a single fact for your god. I understand.
Quote from: doorknob on August 13, 2016, 02:28:20 PM
The only thing I can think of is if god would reveal himself to us. Other than that I can't think of any.
have you seen the movie contact?
Imo that was actually the central point in the movie and i think the conclusion where the god believer and the scientist came together because they both shared beliefs rejected by their scientific peers, but what determines truth is not the belief or disbelief of scientists but rather what is evidenced by the universe. So if I had an experience like the women scientist in the movie I would probably believe like her too.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 02:26:47 PM
God protects is own. And if you are his own and you go through a hard time he guides you in the right direction.
So when I can't seem to hit the right hole with my hard time, God will come to my rescue and get it right in for me?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 17, 2016, 05:11:49 PM
So when I can't seem to hit the right hole with my hard time, God will come to my rescue and get it right in for me?
Right and wrong....must be a believe before you receive the benefits.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: mauricio on August 17, 2016, 05:09:44 PM
have you seen the movie contact?
Imo that was actually the central point in the movie and i think the conclusion where the god believer and the scientist came together because they both shared beliefs rejected by their scientific peers, but what determines truth is not the belief or disbelief of scientists but rather what is evidenced by the universe. So if I had an experience like the women scientist in the movie I would probably believe like her too.
I can agree with that.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 05:25:43 PM
Right and wrong....must be a believe before you receive the benefits.
I guess that's why I don't get anything for Christmas anymore - I no longer believe in Santa Claus...
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 17, 2016, 05:07:07 PM
I see, then what you are talking about is simply subjective. You cannot produce a single fact for your god. I understand.
O lord here we go with the subjective or not quote. Yeah my experience is my proof. What is your proof that God does not exist.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 17, 2016, 05:30:31 PM
I guess that's why I don't get anything for Christmas anymore - I no longer believe in Santa Claus...
I guess
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 05:32:05 PM
O lord here we go with the subjective or not quote. Yeah my experience is my proof. What is your proof that God does not exist.
Hmm...my guess would be...his experience?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 17, 2016, 05:33:14 PM
Hmm...my guess would be...his experience?
Yeah. But mine is real. No one here can prove GOD does not exist.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 05:34:24 PM
Yeah. But mine is real. No one here can prove GOD does not exist.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
how exactly do you proof something ineffable and ambiguous like the concept of god does not exist. Many of it's conceptions make it by definition unfalsifiable, like when people say he is outside time and space whatever that even means. I recommend you to read this http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Its has to be tried. That's the only way.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 05:34:24 PM
Yeah. But mine is real. No one here can prove GOD does not exist.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
You have hope and faith that it is real. You do not know it to be real, otherwise there would be no need for faith.
QuoteIts has to be tried. That's the only way.
Are you willing to try out Hinduism to see if it is real? People who try out something and want it to be real, usually end up thinking it's real. That's just how the human mind works. I accept that some religious people have very real experiences, but what that shows is that they've had an experience that made them feel good inside. Nothing more and nothing less. For the record, I was born into Christianity and did give it a try, and I had experiences with God, but in hindsight, that kind of thing does not impress me in the least. Playing tricks on us is what our minds do best.
Why are you not willing to consider the alternative that your mind could just be playing tricks on you? Because if you considered that for a minute, God might get mad at you and you might lose your shot at cheating death. People are usually only willing to look at things with such an open mind when they've decided that they simply want to find the truth and don't care what the consequences are of finding that truth.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 05:34:24 PM
Yeah. But mine is real. No one here can prove GOD does not exist.
Until you've defined this silly 'God' notion of yours, no one can even discuss it intelligently, much less 'prove' it doesn't exist. Can you prove a "nugraligy" doesn't exist?
Are you simply being obtuse and argumentative, or are we having a real discussion? If the latter, please define this 'God' thing you keep going on about.
The reason for faith is to believe in what you can't see, if you can see it then there is no need for faith.
And no Hinduism is not something I will try.
So you tried God out but it didn't work for you..ok why didn't it work. Was it because things didn't go as you wanted it to go.
Look this relationship with God is not for everyone simply because its a hard walk. But the lessons you learned are worth more than Gold.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
The prove that God exist is in each individual person. When a person like myself ( can't speak for others) says they believe in God its because God has moved in my life and not only changes your heart but it changes your actions towards others.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 06:42:57 PM
The prove that God exist is in each individual person. When a person like myself ( can't speak for others) says they believe in God its because God has moved in my life and not only changes your heart but it changes your actions towards others.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
well so basically there is nothing to discuss about the existence of god anymore then if this is all you got and you say this supersedes any type of info we can share with you. So what now? what is the purpose of your visit?
I thought you guys would have better info on why you don't believe. But you guys follow one another.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 05:34:24 PM
Yeah. But mine is real. No one here can prove GOD does not exist.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Irrelevant ... I deny the existence of proof. So asking to prove or disprove the existence of G-d is like trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, when there are no angels, and you have lost your pin in a haystack.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 17, 2016, 05:01:04 PM
The word apocalypse is often misused to mean a catastrophic end of something, e.g., the world. Can I assume that's the sense you intend here?
Like a character in Alice In Wonderland ... a word means exactly what I intend it to mean, no more and no less.
Yes, every word, borrowed from Greek or not is misused ... it is called poetic license, and we all have that license.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 17, 2016, 05:33:14 PM
Hmm...my guess would be...his experience?
That isn't the problem, the problem is thinking that my experience is objective, but yours is subjective. Rhetoric isn't neutral.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 06:01:51 PM
Its has to be tried. That's the only way.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
I did try ... and G-d is real, but still found wanting. I am not easily impressed.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 05:32:05 PM
O lord here we go with the subjective or not quote. Yeah my experience is my proof. What is your proof that God does not exist.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
My proof? The utter lack in any evidence in your fictional god--nor any other god. I have searched for evidence of god, but have found none. I have not found credible evidence of the existence of any god from any human source. I realize that Paul Bunyan does not exist--is a fiction. Like god and the bible there is written 'evidence' for Paul bunyan. But I realize that he is fiction, for there is no tangible evidence to support his actual existence. You see, g2, I could tell you that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists for I have experienced her. Then I could ask you to prove me wrong. Same concept--the lack of evidence is proof. Can you provide me with any evidence? I did not think so.
You use the word 'believe' in connection with your god. I don't believe in anything. I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I think that it will, since I have amble evidence that it has risen many many times before and it seems to follow a patter. So, I don't believe the sun will rise, but I think that it will. And I will continue to think so until evidence proves me wrong. You belief simply means that that is what you want to believe. And you have faith; which simply means you will not examine facts--and even if you do, you will not accept them since you don't want to--you simply chose to be ignorant. That is your choice, but do not expect me to follow it unless there is some evidence provided that indicates I should.
Quote from: mauricio on August 17, 2016, 05:48:10 PM
how exactly do you proof something ineffable and ambiguous like the concept of god does not exist. Many of it's conceptions make it by definition unfalsifiable, like when people say he is outside time and space whatever that even means. I recommend you to read this http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
I would suggest that if there is not a shred of evidence for something, then that something is proven to not be. The burden of proof is not on the person proving god does not exist, but totally on the person making that claim. I could say that fire ants live on Mars. Prove me wrong. You can't in the same way one cannot provide physical evidence that god does not exist. Just because we have not seen fire ants on Mars they are in places we have not looked yet; I believe that to be true. The burden of proof is on me to prove that those ants live--not on you to prove they do not. If you make the claim, then you have to provide the proof--that's your job. So far, g2 has totally failed in that area.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 06:01:51 PM
Its has to be tried. That's the only way.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
I am willing to try just about anything. So, what am I supposed to try????
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 17, 2016, 08:05:35 PM
I am willing to try just about anything. So, what am I supposed to try????
Confucius say ... until you finish crap, you are constipated. But crap is a never ending story.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2016, 07:48:23 PM
Irrelevant ... I deny the existence of proof. So asking to prove or disprove the existence of G-d is like trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, when there are no angels, and you have lost your pin in a haystack.
First off who are you to deny anything.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2016, 07:55:08 PM
I did try ... and G-d is real, but still found wanting. I am not easily impressed.
Then try being humble
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 17, 2016, 07:57:42 PM
My proof? The utter lack in any evidence in your fictional god--nor any other god. I have searched for evidence of god, but have found none. I have not found credible evidence of the existence of any god from any human source. I realize that Paul Bunyan does not exist--is a fiction. Like god and the bible there is written 'evidence' for Paul bunyan. But I realize that he is fiction, for there is no tangible evidence to support his actual existence. You see, g2, I could tell you that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists for I have experienced her. Then I could ask you to prove me wrong. Same concept--the lack of evidence is proof. Can you provide me with any evidence? I did not think so.
You use the word 'believe' in connection with your god. I don't believe in anything. I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I think that it will, since I have amble evidence that it has risen many many times before and it seems to follow a patter. So, I don't believe the sun will rise, but I think that it will. And I will continue to think so until evidence proves me wrong. You belief simply means that that is what you want to believe. And you have faith; which simply means you will not examine facts--and even if you do, you will not accept them since you don't want to--you simply chose to be ignorant. That is your choice, but do not expect me to follow it unless there is some evidence provided that indicates I should.
Mike. Evidence won't help you if you still THINK the sun will rise everyday instead of believing it will. If you don't believe in anything then you stand for nothing.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 08:13:28 PM
First off who are you to deny anything.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Jewish mystic. I know G-d personally. This isn't good news, it is bad news. G-d is an asshole. There are Internet cartoons sometimes posted here, that agree with me.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 08:14:54 PM
Then try being humble
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Humble yourself, come and be my slave for 400 years. The more I whip you, the higher your eventual status in the Kingdom of Heaven, if I ever let you die.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 17, 2016, 08:05:35 PM
I am willing to try just about anything. So, what am I supposed to try????
Try having a relationship with Him. Pray to him.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 07:41:15 PM
I thought you guys would have better info on why you don't believe. But you guys follow one another.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
you literally said none of our words can supersede you personal experience of god. You have already assumed your conclusion must be truth and blocked out the possibility of it being false since your personal experience made it so evident. None of us can enter your brain and change how it has been shaped by your experience. So apparently dialogue is futile. So what exactly did you experience that gave you such clear revelation of god?
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2016, 08:21:40 PM
Humble yourself, come and be my slave for 400 years. The more I whip you, the higher your eventual status in the Kingdom of Heaven, if I ever let you die.
My ancestors were slaves, that still does not excuse me from loving and forgiving ppl.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 08:19:23 PM
Mike. Evidence won't help you if you still THINK the sun will rise everyday instead of believing it will. If you don't believe in anything then you stand for nothing.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
rather than not believing or believing I choose to take knowledge as provisional. I recognize the limits of my knowledge and perception and simply assert things to be truth only in so far as I currently know with the available evidence and logical arguments. On top of this i recognize that this 'truths' are merely predictions based on previous experiences and extrapolations from patterns previously observed and that this 'truths' are usually stochastic and based on abstractions, therefore always open to further refinement and not quite a absolutely accurate representation of reality. This mainly applies to "truths" about natural phenomena, because there's also other types of 'truths' like my ethics argument which is based on conventionality of axioms between people.
That maybe true somewhat but where is the benefit of not believing in anything greater than yourself. Being a christian man means putting yourself last.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2016, 08:12:04 PM
Confucius say ... until you finish crap, you are constipated. But crap is a never ending story.
Yep--life is a series of toilet seats.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 05:25:43 PM
Right and wrong....must be a believe before you receive the benefits.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
I was a believer for 24 years. There are no benefits. You give God credit for all the good things that happen to you, with no reason to think that it is him. And when your imaginary friend fails you, you just dismiss it. The same "evidence" you see has been seen with every other god who has ever existed.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 17, 2016, 10:36:37 PM
I was a believer for 24 years. There are no benefits. You give God credit for all the good things that happen to you, with no reason to think that it is him. And when your imaginary friend fails you, you just dismiss it. The same "evidence" you see has been seen with every other god who has ever existed.
Not one of those gods can do what God can do. Because of the free will that we have ,the things we go through in life bring good times as well as bad times. But its how we adapt to change and become content with life's issues. My God gives me understanding. He doesn't always fix and or remove the problem but He changes me for the better because of it.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 10:45:20 PM
Not one of those gods can do what God can do. Because of the free will that we have ,the things we go through in life bring good times as well as bad times. But its how we adapt to change and become content with life's issues. My God gives me understanding. He doesn't always fix and or remove the problem but He changes me for the better because of it.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
You just brought up two crippling concepts to your god myth: free will and the problem of evil. Please watch the following 9 minute video, addressing both, before replying.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 10:45:20 PM
Not one of those gods can do what God can do. Because of the free will that we have ,the things we go through in life bring good times as well as bad times. But its how we adapt to change and become content with life's issues. My God gives me understanding. He doesn't always fix and or remove the problem but He changes me for the better because of it.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
what understanding does he give you?
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 05:32:05 PMWhat is your proof that God does not exist.
Since you didn't read this when I posted it in another thread:
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.
It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Quote from: mauricio on August 17, 2016, 05:09:44 PM
have you seen the movie contact?
Imo that was actually the central point in the movie and i think the conclusion where the god believer and the scientist came together because they both shared beliefs rejected by their scientific peers, but what determines truth is not the belief or disbelief of scientists but rather what is evidenced by the universe. So if I had an experience like the women scientist in the movie I would probably believe like her too.
That ending bothered me, and I heard it was a Hollywood rewrite from the book in order to throw the evangelicals a bone. But after thinking about it, I came to the same conclusion as you. People believe in all sorts of things, gods, flat Earth, aliens, and the curative power of copper jewelry, as well as known facts like the exact time it takes the Earth to travel around the Sun. But your qualifications or credentials, be you an outstanding theologian or a Noble prize winning physicist, are irrelevant if you don't have solid evidence. Belief by itself is nothing.
What bothered me about Jodie Foster's role in that movie, was that when asked to provide evidence, she cried. This was out of character from her ordinary nuts and bolts pragmatism. What she should have done was just manned up and admitted she didn't have proof that she had traveled anywhere or met anyone. Sure, try to convince your friends, maybe, but understand if you can't provide evidence, don't get so ego involved that you look like a fool.
I was also disappointed with the aliens. What the Hell were they thinking? "Get Earth to spend 30 trillion dollars on a gadget that can only be used once to send one person off into deep space for a 2 minute meeting with an alien whose only function is to say, 'Welcome to the universe,' and then send you back without so much as a photograph or a complementary T-shirt.
Having said that, I think it's a great movie.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 10:45:20 PM
Not one of those gods can do what God can do. Because of the free will that we have ,the things we go through in life bring good times as well as bad times. But its how we adapt to change and become content with life's issues. My God gives me understanding. He doesn't always fix and or remove the problem but He changes me for the better because of it.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Yes! I believe that! Well, when you subtract all the god stuff. We do adapt and change as we experience more and more in life--if not we don't change; there are those who do that--do the same stuff over and over. I don't know if I've become 'content' with my life's issues, but I have accepted those things I cannot change and changed those things that I can. (For the most part) But none of that has to do with god--it has everything to do with me.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 18, 2016, 09:09:35 AM
Yes! I believe that! Well, when you subtract all the god stuff. We do adapt and change as we experience more and more in life--if not we don't change; there are those who do that--do the same stuff over and over. I don't know if I've become 'content' with my life's issues, but I have accepted those things I cannot change and changed those things that I can. (For the most part) But none of that has to do with god--it has everything to do with me.
Then if it is all you. Teach others. Because you have gained somethings that a lot of ppl are searching for...
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:11:33 AM
Then if it is all you. Teach others. Because you have gained somethings that a lot of ppl are searching for...
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Yeah, like a fully functioning brain, for example.
I like Terry Pratchett's concept of small gods, gods that work at a micro rather than macro level. Gods of shoe tying, for example. I would like a god of fill my wallet with cash or make me handsome to the women of the world or do the dishes so I don't have to. That is a useful type of god.
And god(s) don't exist. To qualify as one, said god would have to live both inside and outside of the natural world, work on the natural world without leaving a trace, and yet expecting worship. And in the process somehow manage to be perfect. Why would god allow free will and then punish you for practicing it? Gods by their actions and their nature are illogical. And the biblical god displays human characteristics of jealousy, rage and selfishness. Not a very good god to my mind.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 10:45:20 PM
Not one of those gods can do what God can do.
Neither can yours. Prove me wrong. Ask your god to use a miracle to prove he exists, the same way he did to the Pharaoh, or like the time he sent fire from the sky to light an offering that was drenched in water. I find it odd how unwilling Christians are to try this. Do you believe that God really did the miracles described in the Bible? Of course you believe, without even seeing a single one. If your God is the same God of the Bible, then let him prove himself like he supposedly had many times before.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 18, 2016, 11:23:46 AM
Neither can yours. Prove me wrong. Ask your god to use a miracle to prove he exists, the same way he did to the Pharaoh, or like the time he sent fire from the sky to light an offering that was drenched in water. I find it odd how unwilling Christians are to try this. Do you believe that God really did the miracles described in the Bible? Of course you believe, without even seeing a single one. If your God is the same God of the Bible, then let him prove himself like he supposedly had many times before.
I see you have been reading. Now ask God to show you. I can't show you.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 18, 2016, 11:23:46 AM
Neither can yours. Prove me wrong. Ask your god to use a miracle to prove he exists, the same way he did to the Pharaoh, or like the time he sent fire from the sky to light an offering that was drenched in water. I find it odd how unwilling Christians are to try this. Do you believe that God really did the miracles described in the Bible? Of course you believe, without even seeing a single one. If your God is the same God of the Bible, then let him prove himself like he supposedly had many times before.
In your life. What kind of real proof is needed. Be real. Not far fetched. He is not going to make you rich so forget that.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 18, 2016, 11:23:46 AM
Neither can yours. Prove me wrong. Ask your god to use a miracle to prove he exists, the same way he did to the Pharaoh, or like the time he sent fire from the sky to light an offering that was drenched in water. I find it odd how unwilling Christians are to try this. Do you believe that God really did the miracles described in the Bible? Of course you believe, without even seeing a single one. If your God is the same God of the Bible, then let him prove himself like he supposedly had many times before.
And why do you guys always blame God for bad things. Especially a non exist one....at least to you.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 11:26:20 AM
I see you have been reading. Now ask God to show you. I can't show you.
Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 11:30:50 AM
In your life. What kind of real proof is needed. Be real. Not far fetched. He is not going to make you rich so forget that.
Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 11:32:42 AM
And why do you guys always blame God for bad things. Especially a non exist one....at least to you.
Why are you replying to the same post three times in a row? Either finish your thought or use the edit function.
1. You cannot show me because your God is fictional. I asked God many times during my years of belief to show himself to me, and he never did.
2. How about talking when spoken to? Real people tend to do that. If God didn't respond to prayers with silence, it would be pretty hard to deny his existence, and yet he continues to hide himself as he demands people believe in him. How suspicious that the only people he talks to are the so-called prophets.
3. You're changing the subject now. This has nothing to do with my post, as I did not blame God for anything other than providing zero evidence to his existence.
Quote from: stromboli on August 18, 2016, 10:43:13 AM
I like Terry Pratchett's concept of small gods, gods that work at a micro rather than macro level. Gods of shoe tying, for example. I would like a god of fill my wallet with cash or make me handsome to the women of the world or do the dishes so I don't have to. That is a useful type of god.
Currently re-reading 'small gods'. Still my favorite Terry Pratchett novel.
Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 11:26:20 AM
I see you have been reading. Now ask God to show you. I can't show you.
I spent many years searching for god. This was actually back during a time when I believed in God, so presumably, he should have been fairly easy to find, because many people who believe in God claim to have found him, although I tend to believe that is more of semantic equivocation. It's not finding something in a real way, like finding an Easter egg, that you can show to Mommy and Daddy. I think what it means is that you believed he was there, and then for one reason or another, you believe a second time that he is there. But that's a stretch of the meaning of "find."
During my quest to find the god I believed in, I did have some experiences that I interpreted as finding God. For example, after praying continually for a sign, I woke up one day feeling extremely delighted and filled with gratitude that I really believed God was there. I'm not making any of this up. I was simply overjoyed that I believed God was there, but nothing had really changed, because I already believed he was there, although previously not with such a heady elation. But this new found elation that was so incredibly intense, began to fade, and a week later, I wasn't so sure I had found anything. Well, I did find a level of elation. That was certainly found, because before that, I had never felt elation that intense. While I definitely found a new emotional level, I couldn't say I found God. What I found was intense elation. But a week later I was just believing in the god the way I believed in God a month earlier.
Later in life, I found even more emotions, much more intense than I had even experienced that one time, and soaring elation was sometimes part of it, but those emotions were from insights that most definitely had no logical connection with God. So the quest was still unfinished and underway, but after 50 years, I decided to call it quits. My one time belief in God had reached an all time low. How long was I supposed to keep doing this? I had spent over half of my life (assuming I'll die before I hit 100 years) not finding God. All that searching kept turning up nothing, except for that one red herring I just described. You know when you spend half of your life failing to find something, you start to have reasons to believe that thing probably doesn't exist, especially when that thing claims to to be there for the finding, and claims to be easy to find if you truly want to find it.
And besides, at that time of my life, my life experiences could more logically be explained by a combination of motivated effort and chance circumstances. The reality of my world pretty much described a world where a god was not necessary to create the combination of randomness and motivation that made things keep going forward. If there was a God, he didn't seem to be doing anything that affected me positively or negatively, and hence he seemed to be acting as if he wasn't there. So pursuing it further logically seemed like a waste of time. This was a happy time in my life. I let myself be free to pursue life for its own sake
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 18, 2016, 11:23:46 AM
Neither can yours. Prove me wrong. Ask your god to use a miracle to prove he exists, the same way he did to the Pharaoh, or like the time he sent fire from the sky to light an offering that was drenched in water. I find it odd how unwilling Christians are to try this. Do you believe that God really did the miracles described in the Bible? Of course you believe, without even seeing a single one. If your God is the same God of the Bible, then let him prove himself like he supposedly had many times before.
Matthew 4:7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test."
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on August 18, 2016, 12:44:57 PM
Matthew 4:7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test."
Why not? Is God afraid that he'll fail the test? Didn't seem to stop him before.
Quote from: SGOS on August 18, 2016, 12:23:07 PM
I spent many years searching for god. This was actually back during a time when I believed in God, so presumably, he should have been fairly easy to find, because many people who believe in God claim to have found him, although I tend to believe that is more of semantic equivocation. It's not finding something in a real way, like finding an Easter egg, that you can show to Mommy and Daddy. I think what it means is that you believed he was there, and then for one reason or another, you believe a second time that he is there. But that's a stretch of the meaning of "find."
During my quest to find the god I believed in, I did have some experiences that I interpreted as finding God. For example, after praying continually for a sign, I woke up one day feeling extremely delighted and filled with gratitude that I really believed God was there. I'm not making any of this up. I was simply overjoyed that I believed God was there, but nothing had really changed, because I already believed he was there, although previously not with such a heady elation. But this new found elation that was so incredibly intense, began to fade, and a week later, I wasn't so sure I had found anything. Well, I did find a level of elation. That was certainly found, because before that, I had never felt elation that intense. While I definitely found a new emotional level, I couldn't say I found God. What I found was intense elation. But a week later I was just believing in the god the way I believed in God a month earlier.
Later in life, I found even more emotions, much more intense than I had even experienced that one time, and soaring elation was sometimes part of it, but those emotions were from insights that most definitely had no logical connection with God. So the quest was still unfinished and underway, but after 50 years, I decided to call it quits. My one time belief in God had reached an all time low. How long was I supposed to keep doing this? I had spent over half of my life (assuming I'll die before I hit 100 years) not finding God. All that searching kept turning up nothing, except for that one red herring I just described. You know when you spend half of your life failing to find something, you start to have reasons to believe that thing probably doesn't exist, especially when that thing claims to to be there for the finding, and claims to be easy to find if you truly want to find it.
And besides, at that time of my life, my life experiences could more logically be explained by a combination of motivated effort and chance circumstances. The reality of my world pretty much described a world where a god was not necessary to create the combination of randomness and motivation that made things keep going forward. If there was a God, he didn't seem to be doing anything that affected me positively or negatively, and hence he seemed to be acting as if he wasn't there. So pursuing it further logically seemed like a waste of time. This was a happy time in my life. I let myself be free to pursue life for its own sake
Thank you for sharing that. I have had that same feeling of emotions when reading the word and sharing the word. That feeling was real however short lived it might have been. In the beginning when searching for god. things seem to go great but soon after they go left. I am just being honest. Living a life dedicated to Christ is The hardest thing to do in the world, that's why many do not even attempt it. Its a life of sacrifice. Not of animals but of everyday life. The longer you read the word the clearer it gets, and also the more understanding you become as well. We will never see a physical Jesus here on earth but his teachings will live in us. This will allow us to understand the issues of life and to not let them overtake us. Many times I've said the same things you mentioned but knowing that if I leave Him I will be jeopardizing my everlasting peace that comes with my faith. Jesus doesn't normally shoe up when our lives are going well, He shows up when all tell is breaking loose in our lives and that where God can be found. God looks for those with a broken and contrite heart, because he knows their prayers a genuine. Remember God does not judge our actions He judges our intents. May you receive all the blessings in your heart my friend.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on August 18, 2016, 12:44:57 PM
Matthew 4:7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test."
That is true.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2016, 06:34:16 PM
G-d isn't Santa, he is a Monster.
A Man created monster. After his own image.
Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 12:55:40 PM
That is true.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
It isn't a test, for an omniscient being ... He already knows the answer sheet.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 08:53:16 PM
That maybe true somewhat but where is the benefit of not believing in anything greater than yourself. Being a christian man means putting yourself last.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
I experience something greater than myself. I don't have to merely believe it. But it does me no good, because life isn't so good, neither is G-d.
Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 08:53:16 PM
That maybe true somewhat but where is the benefit of not believing in anything greater than yourself. Being a christian man means putting yourself last.
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
You answered your own question. "Christianity means putting yourself last." While I would call bullshit on the implication that Christians are self-less, there is some truth in those words. Christians sacrifice. They sacrifice their time, their money, their minds, their freedoms all for a God that gives nothing is return. Throw away your ancient fairy tales and you won't have to sacrifice to appease your imaginary friend. As soon as I made the change, I could immediately sense that my mind was clear, since I was no longer suppressing it to try to justify stupid beliefs. I could see problems in the Christian religion that seemed so obvious. And they were obvious, but the mind of the religious person is incapable of seeing the obvious when it is inconvenient to their beliefs.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2016, 07:50:18 PM
Like a character in Alice In Wonderland ... a word means exactly what I intend it to mean, no more and no less.
Yes, every word, borrowed from Greek or not is misused ... it is called poetic license, and we all have that license.
A county clerk in Kentucky refused to give me a poetic license.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2016, 08:12:04 PM
Confucius say ... until you finish crap, you are constipated. But crap is a never ending story.
Yeah, why crap today when you'll just have to do it again tomorrow? If you're lucky...
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 18, 2016, 06:14:59 PM
Yeah, why crap today when you'll just have to do it again tomorrow? If you're lucky...
Procrastination leads to constipation. Epicurus I am told .... died of it.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2016, 08:20:18 PM
Jewish mystic. I know G-d personally. This isn't good news, it is bad news. G-d is an asshole. There are Internet cartoons sometimes posted here, that agree with me.
And a really fun song, too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxhxKdnjGA8
Quote from: g2perk on August 18, 2016, 09:11:33 AM
Then if it is all you. Teach others. Because you have gained somethings that a lot of ppl are searching for...
Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
I would love to teach this to those close to me. But you see, this is something we all have to learn (or not) on our own. I cannot control anyone else, even if I wanted to. And yes, I've wanted to in the past, considering raising children (and the furry ones-dogs and cats), and teaching in the public school system, it would have been great if I could have spoon fed my ideas and ideals to others. But it does not work that way. I control me (barely at times) --I can share thoughts, but it up to the other to act on it or not.
Look, this has been a long journey--hard at times but always interesting. I love where I am physically and emotionally--I have my past experiences to thank for that. And I have come to know (with total certainty) that the fiction of god had/has nothing to do with my journey; or any other journey. I am not afraid of death--I'm not seeking it yet, but I have no fear of it. As I stated, god is a fiction and is not needed for us to live in a moral, sane and safe world; if god were out of the picture that goal would be much easier to achieve.
Quote from: SGOS on August 18, 2016, 08:22:47 AM
That ending bothered me, and I heard it was a Hollywood rewrite from the book in order to throw the evangelicals a bone. But after thinking about it, I came to the same conclusion as you. People believe in all sorts of things, gods, flat Earth, aliens, and the curative power of copper jewelry, as well as known facts like the exact time it takes the Earth to travel around the Sun. But your qualifications or credentials, be you an outstanding theologian or a Noble prize winning physicist, are irrelevant if you don't have solid evidence. Belief by itself is nothing.
What bothered me about Jodie Foster's role in that movie, was that when asked to provide evidence, she cried. This was out of character from her ordinary nuts and bolts pragmatism. What she should have done was just manned up and admitted she didn't have proof that she had traveled anywhere or met anyone. Sure, try to convince your friends, maybe, but understand if you can't provide evidence, don't get so ego involved that you look like a fool.
I was also disappointed with the aliens. What the Hell were they thinking? "Get Earth to spend 30 trillion dollars on a gadget that can only be used once to send one person off into deep space for a 2 minute meeting with an alien whose only function is to say, 'Welcome to the universe,' and then send you back without so much as a photograph or a complementary T-shirt.
Having said that, I think it's a great movie.
Agreed on all points; the movie was good, but it wasn't as good as the book, which was amazing. There was one line in the book that hit me so hard it genuinely brought me to tears for the sheer immensity of the concept it implied.
Speaking of tears, I want to defend that moment: can you imagine the supreme frustration of knowing something is true, and being completely without any physical evidence for it, while being unfairly hectored about it by a government official who can make life miserable for you, all on live TV?
Side note: I drove through a tornado warning to go see a sneak preview of Contact. Complete with bits of housing material being blown across the interstate. I have weird priorities. :D
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2016, 08:13:09 PM
Could you handle even one shield maiden/Valkyrie? Really!
I know she'd test me!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/67/b2/d6/67b2d6bacf260263b3a4602385189f77.jpg)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 27, 2016, 04:18:51 PM
I know she'd test me!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/67/b2/d6/67b2d6bacf260263b3a4602385189f77.jpg)
The only way that armor makes sense is if you're Achilles and don't actually need it.
I know a woman, the web site boss, on another web site, who actually worships that particular woman. The location of the photo looks more like the Mohave outside of Hollywood, rather than Valhalla.
Quote from: doorknob on August 13, 2016, 02:28:20 PM
The only thing I can think of is if god would reveal himself to us. Other than that I can't think of any.
You know that God exists, the same way that I do. Through his revelation! You can not profess the truth because you suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You love your sin and must repent in order to see that. Repentance is a gift from God that belongs to only those whom he so chooses to give it to.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:50:20 AM
You know that God exists, the same way that I do. Through his revelation! You can not profess the truth because you suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You love your sin and must repent in order to see that. Repentance is a gift from God that belongs to only those whom he so chooses to give it to.
Go away, fool. Preaching is for morons. You didn't come here to relate, you came here to convert. You will be banned as soon as one of the staff reads your posts. :bigyawn:
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:50:20 AM
You know that God exists, the same way that I do. Through his revelation! You can not profess the truth because you suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You love your sin and must repent in order to see that. Repentance is a gift from God that belongs to only those whom he so chooses to give it to.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, but what is revelation ... a burning bush? I agree about revelation, but you judge people without even knowing them.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:50:20 AM
You know that God exists, the same way that I do. Through his revelation! You can not profess the truth because you suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You love your sin and must repent in order to see that. Repentance is a gift from God that belongs to only those whom he so chooses to give it to.
So sad he chooses me to burn in a lake of fire...
"Repentance is a gift from God that belongs o only those whom he so chooses to give it to."
Repentance is an unnecessary concept should God exist and be an all-knowing all-powerfull, all-loving creator of all.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:50:20 AM
You know that God exists, the same way that I do. Through his revelation! You can not profess the truth because you suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You love your sin and must repent in order to see that. Repentance is a gift from God that belongs to only those whom he so chooses to give it to.
You'd have conniptions if you read some of the sexier parts of the Bible. Go away, preacher boy.
(http://orig04.deviantart.net/127b/f/2016/126/d/0/ruby_why_by_cslucaris-da1k0yk.png)
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:50:20 AM
You know that God exists, the same way that I do. Through his revelation! You can not profess the truth because you suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You love your sin and must repent in order to see that. Repentance is a gift from God that belongs to only those whom he so chooses to give it to.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If so, then your god is really very stupid and cruel. Is that god a reflection of you?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 14, 2016, 01:15:14 AM
Go away, fool. Preaching is for morons. You didn't come here to relate, you came here to convert. You will be banned as soon as one of the staff reads your posts. :bigyawn:
Calling me a moron presupposes that there is a standard of reason, what's that standard?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on October 14, 2016, 06:14:43 AM
Ah, but what is revelation ... a burning bush? I agree about revelation, but you judge people without even knowing them.
God reveals himself in many ways, through his creation, through his word and trough his son for example.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 09:54:34 AM
If so, then your god is really very stupid and cruel. Is that god a reflection of you?
I'm sorry why are you calling something cruel? You can only tell me what you don't like not what is wrong or cruel...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:12:58 PM
I'm sorry why are you calling something cruel? You can only tell me what you don't like not what is wrong or cruel...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have you read the bible????? That is why I call your god cruel. I can very easily tell what is wrong or cruel. I suppose your mind is so polluted by your bible and thoughts of your god that you really don't know what is cruel or wrong. I do pity you.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 12:38:36 PM
Have you read the bible????? That is why I call your god cruel. I can very easily tell what is wrong or cruel. I suppose your mind is so polluted by your bible and thoughts of your god that you really don't know what is cruel or wrong. I do pity you.
So the standard for morality is your mind? What happens when two minds disagree? Who's right and who's wrong?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:31:14 PM
So the standard for morality is your mind? What happens when two minds disagree? Who's right and who's wrong?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you using something other than your mind?
Quote from: TrueStory on October 14, 2016, 02:02:22 PM
Are you using something other than your mind?
Yes Gods revealed law that is based on His character.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:07:11 PM
Yes Gods revealed law that is based on His character.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And you aren't using your mind to understand that? How does that work exactly?
Quote from: TrueStory on October 14, 2016, 02:17:50 PM
And you aren't using your mind to understand that? How does that work exactly?
Have you ever written a book? Or published an article?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:18:27 PM
Have you ever written a book? Or published an article?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Answer my question.
Quote from: TrueStory on October 14, 2016, 02:27:55 PM
Answer my question.
I am going to, the reason I asked that is because it's part of my answer. Say you wrote a book right? Does that book have the same meaning the day you published it vs 10000 years from now?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:48:29 PM
I am going to, the reason I asked that is because it's part of my answer. Say you wrote a book right? Does that book have the same meaning the day you published it vs 10000 years from now?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't have to send a back and forth of questions though. Just explain how you think a book from 1000 years ago is different in meaning than now or what ever you want to say.
Quote from: TrueStory on October 14, 2016, 02:56:54 PM
You don't have to send a back and forth of questions though. Just explain how you think a book from 1000 years ago is different in meaning than now or what ever you want to say.
That's the point. It's not different at all. The book has the same intended meaning. It doesn't matter what I think the book says about morality it matters what the book actually says about morality.
Is it impossible for the Christian God to exist?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 03:13:04 PM
That's the point. It's not different at all. The book has the same intended meaning. It doesn't matter what I think the book says about morality it matters what the book actually says about morality.
Is it impossible for the Christian God to exist?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But don't you have to use your mind to read and understand what is going on? What if I read it and come up with a different point of view?
I grew up without a religious influence so the bible and harry potter seem equally real to me.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:07:11 PM
Yes Gods revealed law that is based on His character.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where did god reveal his law?
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:48:29 PM
I am going to, the reason I asked that is because it's part of my answer. Say you wrote a book right? Does that book have the same meaning the day you published it vs 10000 years from now?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Meaning isn't in the words of a book ... it is in the reading of a contemporary (now or 1000 years ago) that determines meaning, along with the text. Assuming the text doesn't change (but it did in practical terms) the Bible today doesn't mean what it meant 1000 or 2000 years ago. The original Christian Bible is in Greek. It doesn't read to a modern Greek, what it meant to an ancient Greek. We don't have an ancient Greek available to demonstrate this however. Suffice it to say, a modern Christian Greek isn't the same as an ancient pagan Greek. Later the Bible was in Latin, and it was being read by a Medieval Frenchman whose language was derived from Latin, but not the same as Latin. Like a Spaniard trying to read Portuguese. The culture of that Frenchman isn't the same as a modern Christian Greek, nor that of an ancient pagan Greek. Then you have today, and I assume English is your first language. So you are reading the Bible in English, and your culture is similar yet different from a modern Christian Greek. You are rather different from that Medieval Frenchman and very different from an ancient pagan Greek.
When I try to read the Bible, I do it in the original languages, and I try to put myself into the mindset of a person living 2000 years ago ... heterodox/heteropraxis Hellenistic Jew ... not orthodox/orthopraxis ... not Gentile. Unless you go to a lot of trouble ... it is very hard to tease the original meaning out of an ancient text. See below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE
Thats why I hold a lot of respect for you Baruch, you approach all religous debate from a philosophical standard of academia, as a theologen. That has more open debate to it in the sense of how religious practices have been part of human evolution, regardless of if we agree with any of it or not, it has its place in the history of society.
That said, it seems like our friend here isn't up for more historical accuracy
Quote from: Baruch on October 14, 2016, 06:54:57 PM
Meaning isn't in the words of a book ... it is in the reading of a contemporary (now or 1000 years ago) that determines meaning, along with the text. Assuming the text doesn't change (but it did in practical terms) the Bible today doesn't mean what it meant 1000 or 2000 years ago. The original Christian Bible is in Greek. It doesn't read to a modern Greek, what it meant to an ancient Greek. We don't have an ancient Greek available to demonstrate this however. Suffice it to say, a modern Christian Greek isn't the same as an ancient pagan Greek. Later the Bible was in Latin, and it was being read by a Medieval Frenchman whose language was derived from Latin, but not the same as Latin. Like a Spaniard trying to read Portuguese. The culture of that Frenchman isn't the same as a modern Christian Greek, nor that of an ancient pagan Greek. Then you have today, and I assume English is your first language. So you are reading the Bible in English, and your culture is similar yet different from a modern Christian Greek. You are rather different from that Medieval Frenchman and very different from an ancient pagan Greek.
When I try to read the Bible, I do it in the original languages, and I try to put myself into the mindset of a person living 2000 years ago ... heterodox/heteropraxis Hellenistic Jew ... not orthodox/orthopraxis ... not Gentile. Unless you go to a lot of trouble ... it is very hard to tease the original meaning out of an ancient text. See below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE
Are you open to a 1:1 skype debate?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:27:16 PM
Are you open to a 1:1 skype debate?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh please. A debate between the two of you would be like a child arguing with a rocket scientist about whether or not it's possible to land a rocket on the sun.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 09:39:04 PM
Oh please. A debate between the two of you would be like a child arguing with a rocket scientist about whether or not it's possible to land a rocket on the sun.
Should be a good time then huh?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:27:16 PM
Are you open to a 1:1 skype debate?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It wouldn't end the way you think. Baruch isn't an atheist: he just doesn't believe in
your god. ;)
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 09:43:42 PM
It wouldn't end the way you think. Baruch isn't an atheist: he just doesn't believe in your god. ;)
There is only one God and if it's not the God of the Bible it's not a God at all...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:44:48 PM
There is only one God
And his name is Allah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJcObz1k_E
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 09:45:55 PM
And his name is Allah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJcObz1k_E
Yeah... no.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:46:55 PM
Yeah... no.
Allahu Akbar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ptdJFFAy68
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:44:48 PM
There is only one God and if it's not the God of the Bible it's not a God at all...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You have been blowvating all over this board--so tell us how it is you know there is only one god.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:46:55 PM
Yeah... no.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I find it amazing that you try to convince us that we can't trust our own senses, and yet you think that you somehow know that your god is the right one. Newsflash, if you were born in a predominantly Muslim society, you would be 100% certain that the Muslim god was the real one. You're a hopeless moron.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 10:25:22 PM
I find it amazing that you try to convince us that we can't trust our own senses, and yet you think that you somehow know that your god is the right one. Newsflash, if you were born in a predominantly Muslim society, you would be 100% certain that the Muslim god was the real one. You're a hopeless moron.
Allah is a false God, Islam can not claim 100% certainty because their imaginary God is not the true God. The Quran refutes itself by calling the Bible a previous revelation from God. The Quran makes claims that the Bible refutes. The Quran is false because the Bible is true.
Again, by which standard do you call me a moron?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:24:50 PM
Allah is a false God, Islam can not claim 100% certainty because their imaginary God is not the true God. The Quran refutes itself by calling the Bible a previous revelation from God. The Quran makes claims that the Bible refutes. The Quran is false because the Bible is true.
Again, by which standard do you call me a moron?
This one.
(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/7/78/Bible_cycle.jpg/400px-Bible_cycle.jpg)
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on October 14, 2016, 11:32:19 PM
This one.
(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/7/78/Bible_cycle.jpg/400px-Bible_cycle.jpg)
Your saying that my argument is circular and you're right.
I can not appeal to anything outside of God to prove God.
That's like asking the strongest man in the world to prove himself without using his strength.
Your also avoiding my question because saying my argument circular is not an objective standard.
You don't have an objective standard of truth and you can't have one...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:47:36 PM
Your saying that my argument is circular and you're right.
I can not appeal to anything outside of God to prove God.
That's like asking the strongest man in the world to prove himself without using his strength.
Your also avoiding my question because saying my argument circular is not an objective standard.
You don't have an objective standard of truth and you can't have one...
That's your subjective opinion.
[mod]and on that note we'll bid your farewell.[/mod]
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:44:48 PM
There is only one God and if it's not the God of the Bible it's not a God at all...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
apparently spelling out the fact there are countless versions of the same god didn't quite sink in.
Sudden fiery letters in the sky or on the moon would saying "I AM GOD AND I AM HERE" would certainly make me think twice. A suddenly switching of Jupiter and Venus would be cause for thought. A superhero or being like Thor or Galactus would cause me doubt.
And even then, I would want to test it. A suffciently advance non-deity could fake it. A deity would have to be able to simply reconstruct the universe outside of itself. And even THEN there might be beings in a multiverse to consider.
So proof of a deity has a pretty high bar with me. The concept is so ludicrous, the proof would have to be equal.
If proof is ludicrous, then only a comedian can do theology ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 15, 2016, 01:15:48 PM
If proof is ludicrous, then only a comedian can do theology ;-)
At least a comedian would be entertaining bullshit, rather than just plain bullshit.
Quote from: doorknob on August 13, 2016, 02:28:20 PM
The only thing I can think of is if god would reveal himself to us. Other than that I can't think of any.
When they have looked at all the evidence and decide there is sufficient evidence for God and then see that there is more then enough evidence for Jesus and then decide to put their faith in him. Not blind faith. Active trust. Knowing that he is the way and the truth and the life.
When you say God reveals himself what should that look like for you?
How could a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial God reveal himself?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 07:05:17 PM
When they have looked at all the evidence and decide there is sufficient evidence for God and then see that there is more then enough evidence for Jesus and then decide to put their faith in him. Not blind faith. Active trust. Knowing that he is the way and the truth and the life.
When you say God reveals himself what should that look like for you?
How could a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial God reveal himself?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Surely you are not dense.
If your god could produce the bible for you--and I assume that you believe that--why not create one for every person, in every language, in every time frame? Surely a god who can create the universe can figure out how to make itself known to the creatures he created to populate that universe. And why not create something that is not open to interpretation? Surely your god can do that??
And I have looked long, hard and deep for any scrap of evidence that Jesus existed at all. I've found none. After 30+ years I have come to the conclusion that he is simply a fiction. As is god. So, it follows that the christian religion is based on fiction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 15, 2016, 07:12:13 PM
Surely you are not dense.
If your god could produce the bible for you--and I assume that you believe that--why not create one for every person, in every language, in every time frame? Surely a god who can create the universe can figure out how to make itself known to the creatures he created to populate that universe. And why not create something that is not open to interpretation? Surely your god can do that??
And I have looked long, hard and deep for any scrap of evidence that Jesus existed at all. I've found none. After 30+ years I have come to the conclusion that he is simply a fiction. As is god. So, it follows that the christian religion is based on fiction.
Clearly you have not looked hard enough or not in the right places. Even many atheist do not deny that Jesus existed. Stop looking to atheist for the answers: look to people like Greg Koukl, C.S. Lewis, Hugh Ross, Lee Strobl, and Frank Turek.
I'll ask you the same question. What kind of evidence would you expect from a timeless , spaceless, immaterial God?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 07:39:51 PM
What kind of evidence would you expect from a timeless , spaceless, immaterial God?
The same for all of the other timeless, spaceless, imaterial things, which is nothing because it's imaginary.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 07:39:51 PM
Kaleb--Clearly you have not looked hard enough or not in the right places. Even many atheist do not deny that Jesus existed. Stop looking to atheist for the answers: look to people like Greg Koukl, C.S. Lewis, Hugh Ross, Lee Strobl, and Frank Turek.
Me--Clearly you are blinded by the propaganda--and clearly you have not look hard enough; you do need to add all viewpoints to determine if there is evidence or not. I have found none. And you have no idea who and what I have read. But that is typical of the typical blowhard and willfully ignorant christian.
Kaleb--I'll ask you the same question. What kind of evidence would you expect from a timeless , spaceless, immaterial God?
Me--read what I wrote.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 15, 2016, 07:59:33 PM
So you say I have no evidence.
Yet you definitely don't have any answers so are you willfully ignorant?
I have heard no argument from any atheist that with a little research could be proven false or show that their is inadequate evidence for the position.
I myself was a agnostic and a atheist at one point in time. It was only because I refused to see the writing on the wall. If you can study the people I have studied and come up with good reasons or answers to dispute people like CS Lewis I would love to hear them.
I'll answer my own question to you once I have received a answer from you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: TrueStory on October 15, 2016, 07:48:10 PM
The same for all of the other timeless, spaceless, imaterial things, which is nothing because it's imaginary.
That's your answer?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 08:25:54 PM
That's your answer?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the answer. How do you interact with a timeless, spaceless, immaterial thing?
Quote from: TrueStory on October 15, 2016, 08:32:27 PM
It's the answer. How do you interact with a timeless, spaceless, immaterial thing?
What do you mean by interact?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: TrueStory on October 15, 2016, 07:48:10 PM
The same for all of the other timeless, spaceless, imaterial things, which is nothing because it's imaginary.
Are your thoughts imaginary?
Are you saying you have to have hard evidence you have to use your senses to experience in order to know that it's real?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 08:23:35 PM
So you say I have no evidence.
Yet you definitely don't have any answers so are you willfully ignorant?
I have heard no argument from any atheist that with a little research could be proven false or show that their is inadequate evidence for the position.
I myself was a agnostic and a atheist at one point in time. It was only because I refused to see the writing on the wall. If you can study the people I have studied and come up with good reasons or answers to dispute people like CS Lewis I would love to hear them.
I'll answer my own question to you once I have received a answer from you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You have made the claim that jesus is real. Give me one piece of evidence that suggests that he was an actual person.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 08:39:31 PM
What do you mean by interact?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Already a parry with definitions huh, i'm sure you've used the word before.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 08:42:13 PM
Are your thoughts imaginary?
Are you saying you have to have hard evidence you have to use your senses to experience in order to know that it's real?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If god is only in my thoughts then i'll just simply wish it away with another thought.
I asked a question actually.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 15, 2016, 08:45:43 PM
You have made the claim that jesus is real. Give me one piece of evidence that suggests that he was an actual person.
You still are avoiding my question but that is ok let's move on to Jesus.
What evidence would be sufficient for you to agree that Jesus was actual person who was who he claimed to be?
You don't have to give a long answer. Just some examples of what would be acceptable to you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: TrueStory on October 15, 2016, 08:47:11 PM
Already a parry with definitions huh, i'm sure you've used the word before.
I have but you can interact with someone or something in various ways. So in what way are you referring?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: TrueStory on October 15, 2016, 08:50:03 PM
If god is only in my thoughts then i'll just simply wish it away with another thought.
I asked a question actually.
You missed my point. You were saying God is imaginary because he is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
So are your thoughts except maybe timeless. So because you can't see or touch your thoughts, how do you know they exist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:01:26 PM
I have but you can interact with someone or something in various ways. So in what way are you referring?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well what are the ways you interact with a timeless, spaceless, immaterial thing?
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:04:02 PM
You missed my point. You were saying God is imaginary because he is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
So are your thoughts except maybe timeless. So because you can't see or touch your thoughts, how do you know they exist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thoughts have space, time and material. So your point is in err.
If you next step is idealism don't bother replying.
Quote from: TrueStory on October 15, 2016, 09:05:04 PM
Well what are the ways you interact with a timeless, spaceless, immaterial thing?
If you can't not answer a simple question then I would prefer not to waste my time. That seems to be the way most people interact on this forum. They just blurt their view or question no matter what the previous persons response or question was.
Moving on. I'll wait for Mike to hopefully answer my question that way we can have a actual conversation. He seems to actually want to go that route.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:12:44 PM
If you can't not answer a simple question then I would prefer not to waste my time. That seems to be the way most people interact on this forum. They just blurt their view or question no matter what the previous persons response or question was.
Moving on. I'll wait for Mike to hopefully answer my question that way we can have a actual conversation. He seems to actually want to go that route.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LOL. Because i can't define a common word such as interact. I'm not blurting out anything here, i'm asking you how you interact. A similar question would be 'How do you interact with people? ' and you could list out certain things. I'm guessing it's hard for you because you don't have a legitimate answer.
Quote from: TrueStory on October 15, 2016, 09:20:26 PM
LOL. Because i can't define a common word such as interact. I'm not blurting out anything here, i'm asking you how you interact. A similar question would be 'How do you interact with people? ' and you could list out certain things. I'm guessing it's hard for you because you don't have a legitimate answer.
Why do you need to know how I interact with God?
What purpose would it serve?
We were talking about what evidence would be sufficient for a timeless spaceless immaterial being and how he would show himself?
How does how I interact with God have anything to do with it?
I'm guessing you are intelligent enough to know or figure out how a Christian would interact with their God.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:00:09 PM
You still are avoiding my question but that is ok let's move on to Jesus.
What evidence would be sufficient for you to agree that Jesus was actual person who was who he claimed to be?
You don't have to give a long answer. Just some examples of what would be acceptable to you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let's just make this real simple for you. Give me one--any--piece of evidence that suggests Jesus was a real person.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:31:01 PM
Why do you need to know how I interact with God?
What purpose would it serve?
Because you are claiming something is timeless, spaceless and immaterial, and that you can interact with it.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:31:01 PM
We were talking about what evidence would be sufficient for a timeless spaceless immaterial being and how he would show himself?
How does how I interact with God have anything to do with it?
I'm guessing you are intelligent enough to know or figure out how a Christian would interact with their God.
I know how people interact with books and people. I have no idea how a person interacts with a timeless, spaceless, immaterial thing. Why is it so hard for you to explain?
Quote from: TrueStory on October 15, 2016, 09:39:09 PM
Because you are claiming something is timeless, spaceless and immaterial, and that you can interact with it.
I know how people interact with books and people. I have no idea how a person interacts with a timeless, spaceless, immaterial thing. Why is it so hard for you to explain?
Though I agree you can interact with God I never made that claim you added that in there. I see no purpose in explaining to you how I interact with God. See previous reply.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok then, The New Testament. There is evidence outside the Bible as well.
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Josephus
Lucian
Babylonian Talmud
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:46:36 PM
Though I agree you can interact with God I never made that claim you added that in there. I see no purpose in explaining to you how I interact with God. See previous reply.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can't answer it because there is none. Thanks for playing.
Quote from: TrueStory on October 15, 2016, 10:07:36 PM
You can't answer it because there is none. Thanks for playing.
There is a answer but it does nothing to further the conversation. I'm not taking the. bait.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The existence of a historical Jesus is no more proof of Christianity than a historical Muhammad is proof of Islam.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 08:39:31 PM
What do you mean by interact?
You know perfectly well what 'interact' means, unless you're laying explicit claim to being of subnormal intelligence.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:52:11 PM
Ok then, The New Testament. There is evidence outside the Bible as well.
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Josephus
Lucian
Babylonian Talmud
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The evidence is invalid. There is no writing, past/present/future that is true, it is all fiction. Truth is a person, not a text. There is no valid history or biography, that isn't propaganda and hagiography. All writing is created by man, and all of man's creations are in vain.
Quote from: Baruch on October 15, 2016, 10:18:43 PM
The evidence is invalid. There is no writing, past/present/future that is true, it is all fiction. Truth is a person, not a text. There is no valid history or biography, that isn't propaganda and hagiography. All writing is created by man, and all of man's creations are in vain.
If that's true then everything you just said is false.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 10:09:21 PM
There is a answer but it does nothing to further the conversation. I'm not taking the. bait.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Every reply from you is deflection. I'd like to say that for one moment you thought about the contradiction in thought processes you are making but I guess that is asking to much. The good news is even though there is no god life goes on.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:52:11 PM
Ok then, The New Testament. There is evidence outside the Bible as well.
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Josephus
Lucian
Babylonian Talmud
None of which are unequivocal.
Irrelevant anyway. Even if there was a historical Jesus, that doesn't mean he was divine. There's far more historical evidence for the existence of Siddhartha Gautama -- by your 'logic' that means that Buddhism is unequivocally true. Jim Jones definitely existed -- by your 'logic', the People's Temple was the true religion. MÃrzá Ḥusayn-`Alà Núrà (
aka Bahá'u'lláh) definitely existed, so why aren't you Bahá'�
If Jeshua bar-Joseph was a real person, I wish more of the people who claim to follow him actually
did, rather than following that hysterical sexist Paul.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 07:05:17 PM
When they have looked at all the evidence and decide there is sufficient evidence for God and then see that there is more then enough evidence for Jesus and then decide to put their faith in him. Not blind faith. Active trust. Knowing that he is the way and the truth and the life.
When you say God reveals himself what should that look like for you?
How could a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial God reveal himself?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am the way, the truth and the life ... and so are you. Everybody is Jesus, and nobody is. All humans are characters in a play, where the actors are ad libing. Ever hear of Shakespeare? The Gospels are scripts of Hellenistic plays, staged by guys like Paul. He showed them signs, in the synagogues ... just before they kicked him out. Some theater critics are too harsh! Paul was punished by lashing and being trod upon ... because that is what it takes to get un-excommunicated. Spinoza never endured that, he accepted his excommunication. I interact with G-d, in the ordinary way, every day and night, by being incarnate, and dealing with the other incarnates such as yourself.
On your other tiffs ... materialists by definition, don't accept anything that doesn't involve space, time and matter/energy. They are all naturalists aka "phusoi" or physicists ... and we get the word physician from that root also, because of Hippocrates and his scientific medicine (which involves nature, not gods). You had to visit the sanctuary of Aesclepius if you wanted faith healing.
So axiomaticly, not by deduction, they have to reject your question as nonsense. Like if you were doing math, and claimed you had discovered a square circle.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 10:27:12 PM
If that's true then everything you just said is false.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes ... but what is false is true, and what is true is false. Logic is in vain, reality isn't binary. This is why no computer is alive, a computer is a subset of things that are not alive. But there are living beings, not things ... and we are not binary, even if our futile attempt to be Vulcan is.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 10:27:12 PM
If that's true then everything you just said is false.
And therefore, also everything you've said. Be careful which generalizations you want to make, they can come back and bite you on the ass.
Quote from: trdsf on October 15, 2016, 11:03:43 PM
And therefore, also everything you've said. Be careful which generalizations you want to make, they can come back and bite you on the ass.
But I am masochistic ... care to take a bite ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 15, 2016, 11:08:04 PM
But I am masochistic ... care to take a bite ;-)
The genuinely sadistic response to that is 'No'. :D
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:52:11 PM
Ok then, The New Testament. There is evidence outside the Bible as well.
Jesus' death is estimated to have happened around AD 30 â€" 36. So let's see how many of these people were alive before then.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:52:11 PMTacitus (AD 56 â€" 120)
Pliny the Younger (AD 61 â€" 113)
Josephus (AD 37 â€" 100)
Lucian (AD 125 â€" 473)
Oh, look at that. None of them were alive to see Jesus when he was supposedly alive. Funny how that works. Not a single person remembers seeing Jesus when he was around.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 09:52:11 PMBabylonian Talmud
Explanation, please.
Quote from: trdsf on October 15, 2016, 10:33:44 PM
None of which are unequivocal.
Irrelevant anyway. Even if there was a historical Jesus, that doesn't mean he was divine. There's far more historical evidence for the existence of Siddhartha Gautama -- by your 'logic' that means that Buddhism is unequivocally true. Jim Jones definitely existed -- by your 'logic', the People's Temple was the true religion. MÃrzá Ḥusayn-`Alà Núrà (aka Bahá'u'lláh) definitely existed, so why aren't you Bahá'Ã?
If Jeshua bar-Joseph was a real person, I wish more of the people who claim to follow him actually did, rather than following that hysterical sexist Paul.
He asked for one price of evidence so I gave him many. Of course I had to include some outside the Bible since atheist instantly reject the New Testament even though it has been historically accurate. But since Jesus is in it the atheist must reject it. The Atheist has already presupposed there is no God in their worldview.
All I need is the New Testament forget the other non biblical writers. There is plenty of reason to believe the New Testament is true. But I am certain no amount of evidence would say 90% of Atheist because they don't want there to be a God. They want to be their own God.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on October 15, 2016, 10:36:34 PM
I am the way, the truth and the life ... and so are you. Everybody is Jesus, and nobody is. All humans are characters in a play, where the actors are ad libing. Ever hear of Shakespeare? The Gospels are scripts of Hellenistic plays, staged by guys like Paul. He showed them signs, in the synagogues ... just before they kicked him out. Some theater critics are too harsh! Paul was punished by lashing and being trod upon ... because that is what it takes to get un-excommunicated. Spinoza never endured that, he accepted his excommunication. I interact with G-d, in the ordinary way, every day and night, by being incarnate, and dealing with the other incarnates such as yourself.
On your other tiffs ... materialists by definition, don't accept anything that doesn't involve space, time and matter/energy. They are all naturalists aka "phusoi" or physicists ... and we get the word physician from that root also, because of Hippocrates and his scientific medicine (which involves nature, not gods). You had to visit the sanctuary of Aesclepius if you wanted faith healing.
So axiomaticly, not by deduction, they have to reject your question as nonsense. Like if you were doing math, and claimed you had discovered a square circle.
Oh boy there is so much that could be said about your statement. If I can remember to come back here and reply I will. Today is my sons birthday so after this morning I won't be around much
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on October 15, 2016, 10:42:05 PM
Yes ... but what is false is true, and what is true is false. Logic is in vain, reality isn't binary. This is why no computer is alive, a computer is a subset of things that are not alive. But there are living beings, not things ... and we are not binary, even if our futile attempt to be Vulcan is.
You will never further your cause with crazy talk like that. I am certain most atheist would not claim you as one of their own.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 16, 2016, 12:31:07 AM
Jesus' death is estimated to have happened around AD 30 â€" 36. So let's see how many of these people were alive before then.
Oh, look at that. None of them were alive to see Jesus when he was supposedly alive. Funny how that works. Not a single person remembers seeing Jesus when he was around.
Explanation, please.
bethinking.org says
"Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans![24]
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament."
So by your logic many historical writings would be false such as these.
Click on picture
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161016/b54056d123c058b8eb60ce58c39da49e.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: trdsf on October 15, 2016, 11:03:43 PM
And therefore, also everything you've said. Be careful which generalizations you want to make, they can come back and bite you on the ass.
Actually I have not made any self defeating statements.
He said all writings are false past present and future.
He wrote something in the present which would make it false. His statement defeats itself and therefore is not valid. Or at least tells me he is to off in space to have a serious conversation
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 08:15:38 AM
Actually I have not made any self defeating statements.
He said all writings are false past present and future.
He wrote something in the present which would make it false. His statement defeats itself and therefore is not valid. Or at least tells me he is to off in space to have a serious conversation
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are speaking to god ... now you must obey me or go to Hell ... I want you to take two cloves of garlic, and shove each one up each of your nostrils ... while watching Monty Python skit about the Holy Hand Grenade Of Antioch ...
There was a movie in the early 50s, called This Is God Speaking ... God apparently doesn't need a starship, but does need radio ... there weren't many TVs yet, but that is the Devil's own ... bwahaha
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 08:05:50 AM
You will never further your cause with crazy talk like that. I am certain most atheist would not claim you as one of their own.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is because not only are most theists liars, so are most atheists ... monkey men are like that. I reject rationalism, and piss in Descartes' piniot noire! Did you know that computer bus architecture, which is part of the system I am communicating on, uses three state logic, not two state logic ... the Aristotelian horrors will they ever cease? Some subway control architectures use fuzzy logic, that means a continuum of states, not binary.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 08:15:38 AM
Actually I have not made any self defeating statements.
He said all writings are false past present and future.
He wrote something in the present which would make it false. His statement defeats itself and therefore is not valid. Or at least tells me he is to off in space to have a serious conversation
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are using hearsay and propaganda from decades to centuries later than Paul. You are using old toilet paper. Paul was almost contemporary, and he never mentions the living Jesus, only the dead one. He founded Christianity, not Jesus. And Constantine took what had developed out of that, and made a state religion out of it ... for his political benefit. The Babylonian Talmud, if you had bothered to check, was written down around 600 CE ... even later than the surviving copies of Paul's letters. No Jew has ever, nor will ever, admit that Jesus was real ... because he wasn't. Even Muhammad was tripped up, though his revelation reveals a very different Jesus than the Pauline one ... Muhammad knew he had to compete with Jewish and Christian Arabs.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 15, 2016, 08:23:35 PM
So you say I have no evidence.
Yet you definitely don't have any answers so are you willfully ignorant?
I have heard no argument from any atheist that with a little research could be proven false or show that their is inadequate evidence for the position.
Good thing the atheist position is justified not by the validity of it's claims, of which it needs make none, but by the lack of evidence for claims of the opposite.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/quote]
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 16, 2016, 08:53:45 AM
Good thing the atheist position is justified not by the validity of it's claims, of which it needs make none, but by the lack of evidence for claims of the opposite.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually the same could be said about Atheist. You have no proof for your claims. No answers just rejection of truth because it interferes with your life.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 16, 2016, 08:53:45 AM
Good thing the atheist position is justified not by the validity of it's claims, of which it needs make none, but by the lack of evidence for claims of the opposite.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The fact Atheist exist implies a claim. If you did not need a claim you would not need to identify as a Atheist.
Being a skeptic implies you are not a skeptic about something. Like your skepticism of God shows you are not skeptical about the fact he does not exist.
Which is your claim, which you have no evidence or answers for. Just a bunch of theory's. most of which if were proven true would still not prove there is no creator.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 09:31:11 AM
Actually the same could be said about Atheist. You have no proof for your claims. No answers just rejection of truth because it interferes with your life.
I was talking about atheism in the first place. So I don't really get what you are getting at.
But, no, as an atheist I have no claims I need to prove.
I don't think I reject truths. I reject unsubstantiated, unlikely assertions. As you make claims, present their evidence and if it holds up; I won't reject it.
Simple.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 08:00:00 AM
All I need is the New Testament forget the other non biblical writers. There is plenty of reason to believe the New Testament is true. But I am certain no amount of evidence would say 90% of Atheist because they don't want there to be a God. They want to be their own God.
Since this is so, why are here? You have a closed belief system and evidence does not play a part in forming it. You know how atheists think, so why bother to come to an atheist board? Seems to me you are simply attempting to poke the anthill and see how many ants you can get running around.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 16, 2016, 09:38:42 AM
I was talking about atheism in the first place. So I don't really get what you are getting at.
But, no, as an atheist I have no claims I need to prove.
I don't think I reject truths. I reject unsubstantiated, unlikely assertions. As you make claims, present their evidence and if it holds up; I won't reject it.
Simple.
As an Atheist you claim there is no God.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 09:36:58 AM
The fact Atheist exist implies a claim. If you did not need a claim you would not need to identify as a Atheist.
Being a skeptic implies you are not a skeptic about something. Like your skepticism of God shows you are not skeptical about the fact he does not exist.
Which is your claim, which you have no evidence or answers for. Just a bunch of theory's. most of which if were proven true would still not prove there is no creator.
I identify as atheist because there are so many who identify as theist that it makes sense to me to do so.
I'm not skeptic about things that aren't claimed. That much is true. And when anyone walks up to me and claims they can prove there is/ are no god(s), i'll look at that claim and it's 'evidence' skeptically too. It's just not often that people make negative claims seriously.
I'm not claiming there is no creator. I'm not claiming I can prove there is no god. But untill you can prove there is, I have no reason to think there is one.
I'd appreciate it if you focussed on your part of this conversation and not attempt to dictate what I think and believe. Especially if you are going to do such a piss-poor job at it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 16, 2016, 10:00:43 AM
Since this is so, why are here? You have a closed belief system and evidence does not play a part in forming it. You know how atheists think, so why bother to come to an atheist board? Seems to me you are simply attempting to poke the anthill and see how many ants you can get running around.
Actually my belief system was closed. For 32 years I believed there was no God or maybe there is no God. Then I became a believer. I have studied both sides and Atheist have no ground to stand on. Mainly you are a bunch of arrogant hard hearted individuals. It's sad to see that the world has hardened your hearts. Maybe one day you will quote running.
As to why I come to a atheist board. It's because rather then blindly claim my faith I am learning constantly until the day I day what the view points of others are. So I know how to argue them if they are incorrect. Much like the intelligent atheist do. The ones that can hold a conversation with out getting angry or make claims with no argument to back it up.
You see as Christians we are to spread the Gospel and let people know about Jesus Christ. A lot of people have questions that are hard to answer. I don't want to be a Christian who's answer is " well you just got to have faith" contrary to what atheist believe faith is not blind. Faith in Greek is Pisteuo which means to trust. To place confidence in. Who trust or places confidence blindly. Unfortunately to many people Christians included. I have studied the evidence I continue to study the evidence and continue to see more and more reason to believe in God and Jesus Christ then to not. Atheist just have not presented any good arguments.
I enjoy dialogue about this topic and hope to speak with atheist who will not hurl insults and have a intelligent conversation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 16, 2016, 10:19:09 AM
I identify as atheist because there are so many who identify as theist that it makes sense to me to do so.
I'm not skeptic about things that aren't claimed. That much is true. And when anyone walks up to me and claims they can prove there is/ are no god(s), i'll look at that claim and it's 'evidence' skeptically too. It's just not often that people make negative claims seriously.
I'm not claiming there is no creator. I'm not claiming I can prove there is no god. But untill you can prove there is, I have no reason to think there is one.
I'd appreciate it if you focussed on your part of this conversation and not attempt to dictate what I think and believe. Especially if you are going to do such a piss-poor job at it.
You affiliate yourself with a group because they are the minority. If hurler was around would you become a Nazi because they are the minority?
If you are claiming you don't know if there is a creator then why do you claim to be a atheist?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 10:29:31 AM
You affiliate yourself with a group because they are the minority. If hurler was around would you become a Nazi because they are the minority?
If you are claiming you don't know if there is a creator then why do you claim to be a atheist.
Do read carefully; i used the word identify, not affiliate. As I understand it, they have a different meaning.
I don't have any reason to believe in a deity. Theists keep failing to support their claim. But if there weren't so many of them, I wouldn't have to identify with the label 'atheist'.
If atheism were the norm, atheists wouldn't have to identify as atheists, despite being atheists. That's all I was getting at.
I don't know if there is a god. That isn't what i've been saying up to this point, but it's true. That makes me an agnostic. I also happen not to believe there is a god (as no evidence for his existence has been presented). This makes me an atheist. I don't have to "believe there is no god". It suffices "not believing there is one".
I also don't have to make the claim there is no god. I just don't have to believe your claim that there is one.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 10:24:17 AM
Actually my belief system was closed. For 32 years I believed there was no God or maybe there is no God. Then I became a believer. I have studied both sides and Atheist have no ground to stand on. Mainly you are a bunch of arrogant hard hearted individuals. It's sad to see that the world has hardened your hearts. Maybe one day you will quote running.
I find that interesting. I think the same way, but in reverse. I grew up thinking there probably was a god, but did not really do any hard studying on the subject. I thought much the same through college and the Army. Sometime after I became a teacher I became more curious about god/no god. Started studying slowly and sporadically. My divorce lead to an emotional/spiritual crisis of sorts and began thinking of the spiritual side of life more deeply. Began a more through study of the bible and jesus/god. Married a catholic (recovering catholic, actually) and we studied together. I went to a few traditional churches, but that proved too unsatisfying and enlightening. Found Unity church and stayed with that for 10 years. Was board president and secretary and VP for 6 of those years. I yearned to find 'god' or 'jesus' and develop so sort of bond or relationship. That did not pan out. During this time are started a fairly serious study of the issues. I gathered a small library that consisted of the most conservative types (McDowell, Crossian, and others), those in the middle and those that were either atheist or skeptic. I like to look at a problem from all angles, not just one because I try to approach a question with an open mind. I read the bible a couple of times (the New Revised KJ version--learned that that is just one of many, though) and with the aid of a concordant or two. The more I studied, the more I realized that both god and jesus are fictions. And that the bible is deeply flawed and cobbled together by men from a very large group of individual writings.
You strike me as a typical theist. You make judgments; make unsubstantiated claims; and demand that we give you a book full of 'facts' before you give one. I don't feel I have to 'prove' there is no god to somebody who offers no proof there is one. You ask question after question without offering to answer any. That is not a discussion. That is an interrogation.
You see, I think it is you that has a hardened head and heart. You have to, for that is how you hold on to your faith; faith cannot exist when facts are included in the thought process. You are the one that comes to us with preconceived notions of what it is I think and how I think it. Just as no two theists are exactly alike; no two atheists are exactly alike--in fact, the atheist is more likely to be totally different than the one right next to him. Now, if you would like to have a discussion, discuss away. What that would look like to me is that you give me some evidence about your beliefs (not 50 or 100, or 10--just one), so that we can share our thoughts about that evidence. That way, over the course of a discussion we can learn more about how the other thinks. I'm willing to partake of something like that, if you are. If so, present away and I'll tell you why I disagree or agree (and not, just that I do agree or disagree).
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 10:13:52 AMAs an Atheist you claim there is no God.
No. As atheists, we do not believe the claim that there is a god. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 16, 2016, 12:08:10 PM
I find that interesting. I think the same way, but in reverse. I grew up thinking there probably was a god, but did not really do any hard studying on the subject. I thought much the same through college and the Army. Sometime after I became a teacher I became more curious about god/no god. Started studying slowly and sporadically. My divorce lead to an emotional/spiritual crisis of sorts and began thinking of the spiritual side of life more deeply. Began a more through study of the bible and jesus/god. Married a catholic (recovering catholic, actually) and we studied together. I went to a few traditional churches, but that proved too unsatisfying and enlightening. Found Unity church and stayed with that for 10 years. Was board president and secretary and VP for 6 of those years. I yearned to find 'god' or 'jesus' and develop so sort of bond or relationship. That did not pan out. During this time are started a fairly serious study of the issues. I gathered a small library that consisted of the most conservative types (McDowell, Crossian, and others), those in the middle and those that were either atheist or skeptic. I like to look at a problem from all angles, not just one because I try to approach a question with an open mind. I read the bible a couple of times (the New Revised KJ version--learned that that is just one of many, though) and with the aid of a concordant or two. The more I studied, the more I realized that both god and jesus are fictions. And that the bible is deeply flawed and cobbled together by men from a very large group of individual writings.
You strike me as a typical theist. You make judgments; make unsubstantiated claims; and demand that we give you a book full of 'facts' before you give one. I don't feel I have to 'prove' there is no god to somebody who offers no proof there is one. You ask question after question without offering to answer any. That is not a discussion. That is an interrogation.
You see, I think it is you that has a hardened head and heart. You have to, for that is how you hold on to your faith; faith cannot exist when facts are included in the thought process. You are the one that comes to us with preconceived notions of what it is I think and how I think it. Just as no two theists are exactly alike; no two atheists are exactly alike--in fact, the atheist is more likely to be totally different than the one right next to him. Now, if you would like to have a discussion, discuss away. What that would look like to me is that you give me some evidence about your beliefs (not 50 or 100, or 10--just one), so that we can share our thoughts about that evidence. That way, over the course of a discussion we can learn more about how the other thinks. I'm willing to partake of something like that, if you are. If so, present away and I'll tell you why I disagree or agree (and not, just that I do agree or disagree).
Ok then why do you think the New Testament is false. I think it is true for several reasons but let's just give a few.
The disciples had nothing to gain and everything to loose.
The historical details are accurate. People and places
The disciples gave testimony that would be embarrassing to them.
It was written by eye witnesses or people who were disciples of eye witnesses and written very close to the time of Jesus.
That's just a few. We can stick to the just the New Testament of you like.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 16, 2016, 12:32:46 PM
No. As atheists, we do not believe the claim that there is a god. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
As materialists, they claim there is nothing supernatural, so there is no G-d. As rationalists, they claim that life is reasonable if we learn to think straight. I find both these claims to be false, that there is nothing natural and nothing rational about life, no matter how you think about it. Any visiting theist would do better to spend time with me, since I at least have eyes to see and ears to hear. Rationalism and materialism are like Wizard of Oz, before while Dorothy was still in Kansas. Seeing in technicolor, black and white still exist for me, but they are not limits for me. Some theists seem to experience color, but they deny the existence of black and white. You are both wrong ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 16, 2016, 12:32:46 PM
No. As atheists, we do not believe the claim that there is a god. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
lol which would mean you believe the claim there is no God.
If you were not sure there was a God then you would not be a atheist correct?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 03:18:26 PM
lol which would mean you believe the claim there is no God.
If you were not sure there was a God then you would not be a atheist correct?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kibbitzing ... I would agree with the atheists that there are no unicorns. If you came here claiming you somehow knew there were unicorns (other than as fictional animals) ... I would treat you as they do ... as a nut job (no disrespect, some of my best friends are nut jobs).
Hard atheists definitely are not agnostic, they claim to know, not believe, that there are no gods. Some atheists fit between hard atheism and agnosticism. On the other hand, I know that there is at least one god, G-d ... and I see no reason to complicate things further ;-) My razor, not Ockam's.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 03:15:28 PM
Ok then why do you think the New Testament is false. I think it is true for several reasons but let's just give a few.
The disciples had nothing to gain and everything to loose.
The historical details are accurate. People and places
The disciples gave testimony that would be embarrassing to them.
It was written by eye witnesses or people who were disciples of eye witnesses and written very close to the time of Jesus.
That's just a few. We can stick to the just the New Testament of you like.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The books in the New Testament, were written by Jews, not by Gentiles ... and not by Christians. Paul's Bible was the Greek OT ... unless he could also read Hebrew and Aramaic ... and in his time, the OT wasn't a closed canon. That came after his time ... and in the Greek Bible case, with the added NT books ... it wasn't closed until the 5th century CE. There were plenty of books that are Jewish, that didn't make it into either the OT nor the NT ... and the orthodox Christians include all the approved works of the Pre- and Post- Nicene Fathers as canonical as well. None of these works, both in and out of the modern Bible, were written by Jesus, or by eye-witnesses ... they are literary fantasies and hagiographies ... written for reasons other than truthful journalism. Truthful journalism at least on current evidence, should never be mentioned again ;-)
If you want to begin to perceive how the NT came about, you have to know Judaism in its various forms, many other religions of that time that impinged upon the NT writings, and pay very close attention to Kabbalah and the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Thomas .. either of which may have been written by Jews while under the influence of various psychoactive substances. And that doesn't count the subsequent editing of what was included.
Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2016, 03:18:20 PM
As materialists, they claim there is nothing supernatural, so there is no G-d. As rationalists, they claim that life is reasonable if we learn to think straight. I find both these claims to be false, that there is nothing natural and nothing rational about life, no matter how you think about it. Any visiting theist would do better to spend time with me, since I at least have eyes to see and ears to hear. Rationalism and materialism are like Wizard of Oz, before while Dorothy was still in Kansas. Seeing in technicolor, black and white still exist for me, but they are not limits for me. Some theists seem to experience color, but they deny the existence of black and white. You are both wrong ;-)
Of your many contributions, this is one of my favorites.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 03:18:26 PM
lol which would mean you believe the claim there is no God.
If you were not sure there was a God then you would not be a atheist correct?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Atheists make no claim to know whether or not there is a god. Most of us are open to evidence that gods exist, but since there is none, we remain skeptical. That is very different than the Christian way of thinking, certain that God exists, whether or not evidence supports that claim.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 16, 2016, 05:23:51 PM
Atheists make no claim to know whether or not there is a god. Most of us are open to evidence that gods exist, but since there is none, we remain skeptical. That is very different than the Christian way of thinking, certain that God exists, whether or not evidence supports that claim.
I will admit many Christians do think that way but so do many atheist. There is plenty of evidence for God it may just not satisfy what you require.
What did you think of the picture I posted in response to your argument that none of the people I referenced were alive when Jesus was?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 03:15:28 PM
Kaleb-- Ok then why do you think the New Testament is false. I think it is true for several reasons but let's just give a few.
The historical details are accurate. People and places
Me--The apostles should be twelve of the most famous people in history. We're told they were hand picked by Jesus to witness his wondrous deeds, learn his sublime teachings, and take the good news of his kingdom to the ends of the earth.
Which makes it all the more surprising that we know next to nothing about them. We can't even be sure of their names: the gospels list a collection of more than twenty names for the so-called twelve disciples â€" with Bartholomew sometimes showing up as Nathanael, Matthew as Levi and Jude as Thaddeus, Lebbaeus, or Daddaeus!
It should be apparent that if the twelve were actual historical figures, with such an important role in the foundation and growth of the Church, it would be impossible to have such wild confusion over the basic question of who they really were.
But what do we know about any of them?
"Twelve Good Men and True"?
The fact is that for seven of the twelve, our only early source, the Gospels, say nothing about them at all. They are just names on a list.
Isn't it a tad odd that such worthies, infused with the Holy Spirit and given powers to heal the sick and cast out demons, wrote nothing, or had nothing written for them or about them? Isn't it odd that men chosen to be eye-witnesses to the mighty deeds of Jesus, wrote no eye-witness statements, left no sermons, no memoirs, no letters, no teachings, no pithy words of encouragement?
All that we have about "the twelve" are conflicting legends and fantastic stories from a much later date, tall stories about where they went, what they did and most especially how they died. Their deaths, it seems, have been recorded in loving and lurid detail. And it is the graphic deaths of the disciples that solves the riddle. We've all heard the apologetic claim: "Would they have died for a lie? Therefore the story of Jesus must be true."
But we all know how useful to a cause is a dead martyr, even if he's a fiction. In the case of Jesus, the twelve are a fiction, a necessary entourage for a sun god, passing through the twelve constellations of the zodiac. Just like other saviour gods, Jesus had to have his retinue.
The truth is, the twelve disciples are a grubby and sordid invention.
The apostles should be twelve of the most famous people in history. We're told they were hand picked by Jesus to witness his wondrous deeds, learn his sublime teachings, and take the good news of his kingdom to the ends of the earth.
Which makes it all the more surprising that we know next to nothing about them. We can't even be sure of their names: the gospels list a collection of more than twenty names for the so-called twelve disciples â€" with Bartholomew sometimes showing up as Nathanael, Matthew as Levi and Jude as Thaddeus, Lebbaeus, or Daddaeus!
It should be apparent that if the twelve were actual historical figures, with such an important role in the foundation and growth of the Church, it would be impossible to have such wild confusion over the basic question of who they really were.
But what do we know about any of them?
"Twelve Good Men and True"?
The fact is that for seven of the twelve, our only early source, the Gospels, say nothing about them at all. They are just names on a list.
Isn't it a tad odd that such worthies, infused with the Holy Spirit and given powers to heal the sick and cast out demons, wrote nothing, or had nothing written for them or about them? Isn't it odd that men chosen to be eye-witnesses to the mighty deeds of Jesus, wrote no eye-witness statements, left no sermons, no memoirs, no letters, no teachings, no pithy words of encouragement?
All that we have about "the twelve" are conflicting legends and fantastic stories from a much later date, tall stories about where they went, what they did and most especially how they died. Their deaths, it seems, have been recorded in loving and lurid detail. And it is the graphic deaths of the disciples that solves the riddle. We've all heard the apologetic claim: "Would they have died for a lie? Therefore the story of Jesus must be true."
But we all know how useful to a cause is a dead martyr, even if he's a fiction. In the case of Jesus, the twelve are a fiction, a necessary entourage for a sun god, passing through the twelve constellations of the zodiac. Just like other saviour gods, Jesus had to have his retinue.
The truth is, the twelve disciples are a grubby and sordid invention.
Where DID they get their ideas from?
Joshua also chose Twelve
"The LORD spoke to Joshua, saying: 'Take for yourselves twelve men from the people, one man from every tribe' ... Then Joshua called the twelve men whom he had appointed from the children of Israel, one man from every tribe." â€" Joshua 4.1-4.
The names 'Jesus' and 'Joshua' both derive from the Hebrew Yehoshua â€" an heroic name ('Yahweh saves') given to the supposed leader of the Israelites in their conquest of Canaan.
The parallels don't end there. Matthew's Jesus promises his groupies that they will "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." â€" Matthew 19.28.
Martyrs to the Cause: Those "Suffering Disciples"
"Would the disciples have suffered and died for a fabricated saviour?"
One of the reeds of straw holding up the shabby edifice of Christendom is the alleged suffering and cruel fate of his original apostles, the twelve disciples chosen by the Lord himself. By their heroic, cheek-turning sacrifice, these worthies earned their martyr's crown and joined their Lord in Heaven. In so-doing, they inspired generations of noble Christians, who ultimately taught the blood-thirsty Romans the Christian values of compassion and brotherly love. Well, that's the myth.
Though cruelty and human suffering have ever been integral to the history of the Church the fanatics of Christ have rarely been the victimized innocents. Rather it has been the Christians who have bathed their faith in the blood of others.
There is NO corroborating evidence for the existence of the twelve Apostles and absolutely NO evidence for the colourful variety of martyrs' deaths they supposedly experienced. The Bible itself actually mentions the death of only two apostles, a James who was put to death by Herod Agrippa (see James for a discussion of this tricky character) and the nasty Judas Iscariot (see below), who gets several deaths because he's the bad guy.
Legend and tradition alone, dreamed up by the early churches in their bid for legitimacy and authority, provided the uplifting fables of heroics and martyrdom. The plethora of conflicting claims and alternative deaths stand eloquent testimony to wholesale fabrication of the non-existent godman's non-existent companions.
The Fabricated Deaths of the Apostles
1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas).
"Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really. This legend was dreamed up by the mid-2nd century pope Anicetus (156-166) when he became locked in a conflict with the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument (over the dating of Easter) by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus staked a claim to Peter, and Peter, "Prince of the Apostles", trumps John.
2nd century texts known as the "Clementines" had made Peter the "first Bishop of Rome" and 3rd century invention gave him a 25-year pontificate â€" which made it a tad tricky for him to have died at the hands of Nero but, hey, this is "tradition."
3rd century Church Father Origen dreamed up a colourful flourish: Peter, feeling himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, chose option 'B' â€" crucifixion upside down!
2. James, son of Zebedee (James the Greater?)
Acts 12.1,2 says simply:
"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword."
Later legend adds the truly extraordinary nonsense that the Roman officer guarding James converted on the spot and elected to be beheaded beside him! Even later fabrication has James traipsing around northern Spain before he dashes back to Judaea for martyrdom.
3. John, son of Zebedee.
This guy has to be kept alive long enough to take care of Mary, lead the church in Ephesus, write the Book of Revelation and write his own gospel. He even survives being boiled in oil and is given a natural death!
Actually, John bar Zebedee disappears from the yarn in Acts at the same time his brother James is more dramatically removed from the story. The last reference to John is also verse 12.2. From Acts 12.12 onward we are dealing with another John "whose surname was Mark" â€" a lightweight character who nonetheless is credited with authorship of the first gospel.
The impending demotion of the thunder brothers is actually prefigured in Mark's gospel (and is embellished in Matthew, where Mrs Zebedee does the talking). The boys ask for front seats in the hereafter. JC is having none of it:
"And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
"Jesus said unto them ... to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John." â€" Mark 10:35-41.
Thus while the earthly career of Jesus features prominently brothers James and John, "the sons of thunder" (Mark 3.7), the story of the early church features a new James, "the brother of Jesus", and a new John, a sidekick to Paul and Barnabas (see below). We know little about either, although the death of James bar Damneus (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9) provides a basis for the colourful martyrdom of brother James beloved of Christian apologists.
4. Andrew, brother of Peter.
Pious invention gives Andrew a wonderful career covering everywhere from Scythia to Greece, from Asia Minor to Thrace. This guy, it seems, took option 'C' on the crucifixion menu: on an x-shaped cross. Apparently this allowed him to continue preaching for 2 days.
5. Philip.
Fable places this guy in Phrygia, Carthage and Asia Minor. The fairy tale has a proconsul crucifying him for converting his wife. Perhaps the love feast got a bit out of hand.
Somewhat confusingly, there are actually two Philips. The original apostle disappears from the tale after witnessing Jesus rise to Heaven from the Mount of Olives. Philip and the rest of the gang return to the upper room in Acts 1.13. But in Acts 6.5 a second Philip is chosen as one of the seven given responsibility for feeding widows
6. Bartholomew (Nathanael)
What a traveller â€" India, Persia, Armenia, Ethiopia and southern Arabia! Miraculously he managed to get himself crucified (flayed alive and beheaded!) in both India and Armenia. Pretty impressive stuff. Even when dead his bits got about: a church in Rome claimed most of his corpse but 11th century Canterbury did a roaring trade with his arm! His emblem is the flaying knife. Cool.
7. Matthew (Levi son of Alphaeus)
This guy has to be kept alive long enough to write his gospel â€" at least 20 years after the supposed death of Christ. Credited with 15 years in Jerusalem, then missions to Persia and Ethiopia and, of course, martyrdom in both places. According to Medieval iconography he worn spectacles, the better to count his tax money.
If Matthew, aka Levi, is a son of Alphaeus (Mark 2.14) then presumably he is also the brother of James son of Alphaeus (Mark 3.18)? And yet we are told the lesser James is a son of Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin and wife of Cleophas (John 19.25). In which case, the evangelist Matthew is a cousin of Jesus himself! However, Acts 1.13 tells us that the lesser James has a brother called Judas (aka Jude) whereas Mark (15.40) and Matthew's "own gospel" (27.56) both say that James has a brother named Joses. So we now have a regular band of brothers: James, Joses, Judas â€" plus Matthew/Levi ... which comes mightily close to the supposed four brothers of Jesus himself!
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"
â€" Matthew 13.55.
8. Thomas Didymus (the Twin) aka Judas Thomas or Jude Thomas
Another grand traveller, seen everywhere from Parthia to Kerala in south India. 4th century invention, appropriately enough, gives this 'twin' two martyrdoms, one in Persia and one in India. He even gets a burial in Syria to boot! Yet another resting place, Mylapore, was claimed by the Portuguese in 16th century. Most famous for his "doubt", Thomas inspired a whole raft of pious flimflam: the Acts of Thomas (he built a palace for an Indian king, would you believe), the Apocalypse of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Infant Gospel of Thomas.
Now, have you still got any doubts ...?
9. James son of Alphaeus (James the Less â€" or is James the Just?)
The myth-makers really go to town for this guy. Thrown down over 100 feet from the pinnacle of the Temple by "scribes and Pharisees", he actually survived only to be stoned, have his brains dashed out with a fuller’s club and have his body "sawn asunder" â€" all this at the age of 90!
Of course, if we don't conflate James the Less with James the brother of Jesus (an identification made by Jerome and later Catholics) all this mayhem belongs with the righteous James and the fate of the lesser James is unknown.
Perhaps it's the being sawn in half which causes the confusion?
10. Jude/Thaddeus /Lebbaeus /Daddaeus
Either a serious clubbing or crucifixion for this mixed up guy in the city of Edessa or Persia. Apparently his fan-club suffered because his name sounded too much like Judas.
Jude the apostle is often conflated with Jude the brother of Jesus and also with Jude the writer of the epistle of Jude (pay attention, there will be a test). Yet Jude (the letter writer) identifies himself as the brother of James and as a servant of Jesus, not his brother (Jude 1.1). He also speaks of the apostles in the past tense, not as if he was one of them (verse 17), so he cannot be identified as one of "the twelve" either.
11. Simon the Canaanite/ the Zealot.
Invention came late for this guy. When it did, it was a beauty â€" crucifixion in Persia and also crucifixion thousands of miles away in Britain. He also managed to preach in Africa. Quite an act to follow.
12. Matthias.
Fantasy sends this guy to Syria, Cappadocia, the shores of the Caspian and the "City of Cannibals" (Acts of Andrew and Matthias). Death by burning. Also death in Jerusalem by stoning â€" and beheading. Really just makes up the numbers, sometimes merging with Matthew and sometimes swapped out to let Paul into "the twelve."
13. Judas, son (or is that brother?) of James.
Nothing yet. Feeling inspired?
14. Levi, son of Alphæus.
Refer to his alter ego Matthew.
Mark (John Mark).
Though neither Clement of Alexandria (?153-215), nor Origen of Alexandria (182-251) seem to have noticed, Eusebius of Caesarea (c.263-339) relays the news that the apostle Mark had been "first bishop" of Alexandria and had suffered martyrdom in the "eighth year of Nero." This would have been 61 AD â€" rendering the apostle dead before the death of Peter whose memoirs Mark supposedly wrote up as the Gospel of Mark. "Dragged to death", or maybe not. His bones â€" well, someone's bones â€" turned up in 9th century Venice.
Luke.
"Hanged on an olive tree." Or, "lived to the age of 84 and died unmarried." Body parts claimed by both Padua and Constantinople.
Paul.
"Beheaded by Nero." No, not really, but legend tells us he shared the same fate as Peter, even dying on the same day. Pious romances scribbled between the 2nd and 4th centuries â€" Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Martyrdom of Paul and the Acts of Paul and Thecla â€" provide all the fabulous nonsense you could ever wish for.
The above is reposted from the semi-retired Stromboli..........why reinvent the wheel???
Kaleb---The disciples gave testimony that would be embarrassing to them.
Me-- We don't even know who these people were. Notice we do not know who wrote the gospels; even from within each, they are only attributed to a certain author; but we are ignorant of who wrote them. What 'testimony' could they have given? None--hersey is the best we can say; fictional is also a possibility.
Kaleb--It was written by eye witnesses or people who were disciples of eye witnesses and written very close to the time of Jesus.
Me--Not a single eye witness wrote about jesus during his lifetime. That is quite odd, when one thinks about it. The things jesus is supposed to have done would not fail to cause uproars wherever he would go. Yet nobody saw fit to write of it. And it is not a lack of historians to write about it. Philo, for one, would have written books about it, for it would have been near and dear to his heart--and he was a traveler. I find it troubling and telling that no a single person wrote of jesus during his life--and jesus penned not a word.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 16, 2016, 07:02:14 PM
Ok so basically what you are saying is we have no proof that the disciples even existed? Am I'm correct?
The whole New Testament is made up?
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 09:31:25 PM
Ok so basically what you are saying is we have no proof that the disciples even existed? Am I'm correct?
The whole New Testament is made up?
We know that Paul existed. The other authors of the NT are unknown. Mark, for example, is attributed to Mark, but there is no evidence he wrote it. And even if a person by the name of Mark wrote it, we have no evidence of who he is nor when he wrote it. Paul is the first author of the NT--but he offers no autobiographical data for jesus. For him, the christ is an ethereal character and not flesh and blood type person. So, basically, we don't know the disciples even existed.
The NT made up? No, it exists. But it was crafted from among a very large number of writings to select from. And this was a process that lasted hundreds of years. And still, the NT is not a fully agreed upon compilation; and the same is true of the bible as a whole. Go into any christian book store and you can find hundreds of different versions of the bible. The NT was crafted by various people over the course of time. We know that the letters of Paul, for example, had text removed and added many times. The gospel of john is a collection of several authors. So, let's say the NT was engineered according to the wishes of various people over the course of a long time. The bible did not drop from the sky a finished product of god.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 16, 2016, 10:15:55 PM
We know that Paul existed. The other authors of the NT are unknown. Mark, for example, is attributed to Mark, but there is no evidence he wrote it. And even if a person by the name of Mark wrote it, we have no evidence of who he is nor when he wrote it. Paul is the first author of the NT--but he offers no autobiographical data for jesus. For him, the christ is an ethereal character and not flesh and blood type person. So, basically, we don't know the disciples even existed.
The NT made up? No, it exists. But it was crafted from among a very large number of writings to select from. And this was a process that lasted hundreds of years. And still, the NT is not a fully agreed upon compilation; and the same is true of the bible as a whole. Go into any christian book store and you can find hundreds of different versions of the bible. The NT was crafted by various people over the course of time. We know that the letters of Paul, for example, had text removed and added many times. The gospel of john is a collection of several authors. So, let's say the NT was engineered according to the wishes of various people over the course of a long time. The bible did not drop from the sky a finished product of god.
Ok thank you it's getting late I will reply tomorrow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kaleb, the following will be a very long post. No, I don't expect you to read it. It is just one page of a huge and very interesting site dealing with textual criticism of the NT. What that means is is that this (textual criticism) is an effort to determine what the various parts of the NT originally said. We don't have any early compositions of the entire NT as it is accepted now. So, each scrap that has been collected has been copied and cataloged as it was found--and where it was found. I find it interesting that that is so; god should have been able to preserve one copy, at least--shouldn't he???? Anyway, no two copies of the writings agree, and textual criticism strives to figure out what the original was. So, this huge page you will see, is an illustration of some of the NT and shows how many variants there are for the various passages shown there. Boring----to the max----right?? I don't think so. Anyway:
Critical Editions of the New Testament
Contents: Introduction * Aland: Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum * Bover * Hodges & Farstad * Huck * Merk * The "Nestle" text: Nestle editions 1-25 | Nestle-Aland editions 26, 27 * Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus * Souter * Swanson * Tasker * Tischendorf * United Bible Societies Edition * Vogels * Westcott & Hort
Summary: A Comparison of the Various Editions
Appendix: Latin Editions
Introduction
Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) broke with the Textus Receptus in 1831. This, then, was the first "critical edition" of the New Testament -- an edition compiled using specific rules based on the readings of a significant selection of important manuscripts. Since then, many others have appeared. Some of these (Lachmann's own, and that of his younger contemporary Tregelles) are now almost completely obscure. Others -- notably those of Westcott and Hort and the United Bible Societies -- have exercised great influence.
Ideally, a critical edition will include an apparatus supplying information about how the readings were decided upon. There are, however, critical editions (e.g. that of Westcott & Hort) which do not include such information. The list below describes most of the major editions since Tischendorf's vital eighth edition.
Aland: Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum
Editor. Text and apparatus edited by Kurt Aland.
Date of Publication. The first edition appeared in 1963. A revised edition, listed as the fourth, appeared in 1967; another revised edition, the ninth, came out in 1976. The final major revision, the thirteenth, was published in 1985. The first three major editions (officially listed as the first through twelfth) use the same basic arrangement of the text; the revisions took place primarily in the apparatus. The thirteenth edition entirely recast the work; a new text was adopted and a new apparatus created. The structure of the synopsis was unchanged, but otherwise it was an entirely new publication.
The Text. The text of the first twelve editions is essentially that of the early Nestle-Aland editions. With the thirteenth edition, the text was adjusted to match that of the Nestle-Aland editions 26th edition.
The Aland Synopsis is one of the more substantial now available. All four gospels are presented in full, and there is a complete text of the Gospel of Thomas (in Latin, English, and German; neither Coptic nor Greek texts are offered!). The critical apparatus is also more than usually complete; an apparatus is usually supplied wherever a passage is cited, not just at its "main" appearance. In addition, the apparatus gives a fairly full list of variants -- many more than are found in the equivalent editions of the Nestle-Aland text, and not limited simply to harmonization variants. While SQE will not allow the student to completely reconstruct the cited manuscripts (especially the minuscules), it includes enough data to allow a valid comparison of the various text-types. (This cannot be said of NA27!)
For compactness, SQE uses the same set of critical symbols as the Nestle text (for details, see the picture in that article).
Unfortunately, the apparatus does have its drawbacks. (We are now referring specifically to the recent editions, from the thirteenth on.) For one thing, it has a high number of errors (most of them seemingly errors of the press; these are slowly being corrected). The selection of witnesses is also questionable. The Byzantine text of the uncial era, for instance, is represented by four manuscripts, E F G H. All of these, it should be noted, belong to the Kx recension. Thus, although there are more Byzantine witnesses than in the Nestle-Aland edition (which offers only K and G), they offer less diversity (of the witnesses in Nestle-Aland, K is a member of Family P, while G is Kx). The new minuscules are also an odd lot. Why would anyone make 1006 (purely Byzantine) an explicitly cited witness, while omitting 1241 (arguably the most Alexandrian minuscule of Luke)? As a final note, we should observe that while SQE cites many member of Family 1 (1 and 209, as well as 205, 1582, 2542 not cited explicitly as members of the family) and Family 13 (13, 69, 346, 543, 788, 983; note that the best family witness, 826, is omitted), it cites them in such a way that the readings of the individual manuscripts can only be determined when the manuscript is cited explicitly (that is, if -- say -- 346 is not cited explicitly on either side of a reading, it may agree either with f13 or M).
To sum up, SQE is a good synopsis with a useful critical apparatus, but one should take care not to rely upon it too heavily (due both to its inaccuracies and its slightly biased presentation of the evidence).
Bover
Editor. Text and apparatus edited by José Maria Bover, S.J.
Date of Publication. The first edition, Novi Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latina appeared in 1943. The first four editions (1943-1959) are essentially identical; the fifth edition of 1977 and following (revised by José O'Callaghan MartÃnez) is slightly different, but primarily in the area of the parallel texts.
The Text. The Latin text of Bover, until the fifth edition, is simply the Clementine Vulgate (in the fifth edition the Neo-Vulgate was substituted and a Spanish version added). Thus the Latin text has no critical value.
The Greek text is somewhat more reputable. It is a fairly typical Twentieth Century product, compiled eclectically but with a clear preference for Alexandrian readings (though not as strong a preference as is found in the Westcott & Hort and United Bible Societies Edition editions). It has been esteemed by some for its balanced critical attitudes; others might view it as having no clear guiding principle.
The Apparatus. Bover's Latin text has no apparatus at all (from the critic's standpoint, there is really no reason for it to be there), and the Greek apparatus is limited. Bover's manuscript data, like that of Merk, comes almost entirely from von Soden. Like Merk, Bover cites a few manuscripts discovered since von Soden's time (papyri up to P52, including the Beatty papyri; uncials up to 0207; a few of the minuscules up to 2430, plus a modest handful of lectionaries).
In construction Bover's apparatus strongly resembles Merk's, using essentially the same manuscript groupings and much the same set of symbols. (For an example, see the entry on Merk). The most significant difference between the two in their presentation of the data is that Bover also lists the readings of the various editions -- T=Tischendorf, S=von Soden, V=Vogels, L=Lagrange (Gospels, Romans, Galatians only), M=Merk, H=Westcott & Hort (h=Hort's margin; (H)=Hort's text against the margin); W=Weiss; J=Jacquier (Acts only), C=Clark (Acts only), A=Allo (1 Cor., Rev. only).
These critical editions also define the apparatus; Bover only offers manuscript information at points where the critical editions disagree. His apparatus is thus much more limited than that of Merk or even Nestle. It also shares the defects one would expect from a work based on von Soden: Many of the collations are inaccurate or imperfectly reported (for details, see the entry on Merk). Bover's transcription of von Soden is somewhat more careful (and often more explicit) than Merk's, and is therefore perhaps slightly more reliable. It is, however, less full even for the readings it contains -- citing, e.g., fewer fathers (the introduction does not even list the fathers cited!) and fewer versions. And Bover has recast Von Soden's groupings a bit -- instead of having five sets of witnesses (for Gospels, Acts, Paul, Catholics, Apocalypse), he uses the same groupings for Acts, Paul, and Catholics. This is reasonable in one sense -- the groupings for the three are fairly similar -- but it makes it harder to use the apparatus, as one is always having to look up exceptions (e.g. 1739 files with H in Paul, but I in the other two). Also, a warning for those with older eyes: The typeface (at least in some editions) is rather unsuitable for the purpose; the symbols | and ] -- keys to understanding the apparatus -- are almost indistinguishable.
Hodges & Farstad
Editors. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad
Date of Publication. The first edition, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, appeared in 1982. A slightly revised second edition appeared in 1985.
The Text. Unlike most critical editions, that of Hodges and Farstad does not attempt to reconstruct the original text on the basis primarily of the earliest manuscripts. Rather, it assumes that the Byzantine Majority text is the original text, and reconstructs this text. For the most part, this is done by "counting noses" -- looking for the reading which has the highest number of supporters (which in the gospels often becomes a matter of printing the reading of Kx). In the Apocalypse and the story of the Adulteress, however, H & F resort in a limited way to stemmatics, meaning that they print a few readings which, although well-supported, are not the majority reading.
It should be noted that Hodges and Farstad did not assemble their text based on manuscript collations; rather, for the most part they simply followed Von Soden's K text and its subgroups (which, in their edition, is denoted M when entirely unified and M when a portion of the type defects). Thus the edition may not always represent the actual majority text. Even so, H & F is the only edition of the Byzantine text-form to have an apparatus of any sort. This makes it useful to anyone who wishes to examine the strength and depth of the Byzantine tradition. (The critic does not have to subscribe to the editors' theories to find the edition useful.) The edition also serves as a useful demonstration that the Byzantine text-type, although more united than any other known type, is not the monolithic entity its opponents sometimes make it out to be.
The Apparatus. The H & F text has two apparatus. The first, and more important for the editors' purposes, is the apparatus of variants within the Byzantine tradition. Here the editors list places where the Byzantine tradition divides, even noting some of the strands identified by Von Soden (e.g. H & F's Mr is von Soden's Kr; their Mc is von Soden's Kc, etc.) They also note the variant readings of the Textus Receptus (demonstrating, incidentally, that the TR is a poor representative of the Byzantine type). This first apparatus, which contains relatively few readings, has its variants marked in the text with numbers and has lemmata in the margin.
The second apparatus lists variants between the H & F text and the United Bible Societies edition. A quick sample indicates that these are roughly three times as common as variations within the Byzantine tradition. For these variants the editors use the same symbols as the recent editions of the Nestle-Aland text.
A handful of witnesses -- Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and certain papyri -- are noted in both apparatus, but their readings are noted only for variants included for other reasons. The H & F apparatus gives far less information about these manuscripts than even the Nestle apparatus, and cannot be used for textual classification of any specific witness.
Although the apparatus of H & F is very limited, it serves a useful purpose even to those who do not believe in Byzantine priority. It is the only available tool (other than von Soden's cryptic edition) for determining if a reading is the Byzantine reading, a Byzantine reading in cases where that text divides, or entirely non-Byzantine. This can be important when dealing with mixed manuscripts. Also, H & F includes some variants not covered in NA27.
Huck
The name "Huck," like the name Nestle, is actually a term for a constellation of editions (in this case, of a gospel synopsis rather than a critical edition), with various editors over the years. The two, in fact, are almost of an age. Albert Huck published his first synopsis in 1892, but this was designed for a particular class and synoptic theory; the third edition of 1906 was the first for general use. With the ninth edition of 1936, the book passed from the hands of Albert Huck to H. Lietzmann and H. G. Opitz. At this time the text was revised (Huck's own editions were based on Tischendorf's text; Lietzmann used a text approximating that of Nestle). The 1981 edition was taken over by H. Greeven, and the arrangement of pericopes significantly altered. Greeven also altered the text, using his own reconstruction rathr than any previous edition.
Editors. Albert Huck; later taken over by H. Lietzmann, H. G. Opitz, H. Greeven
Date of Publication. The first edition was published in 1892; a revised third edition came out in 1906, another revision constituted the fourth edition of 1910. The revised ninth edition of Lietzmann-Opitz was published in 1936. Greeven's thirteenth edition appeared in 1981.
The Text Prior to the appearance of Greeven's edition, Huck could not really be considered in any way a critical edition. Huck used Tischendorf's text, Lietzmann a modification of Nestle's. Neither editor provided a full-fledged critical apparatus. (Lietzmann admitted to having a "limited" apparatus. Not only was the number of variants limited, but fewer than a dozen Greek witnesses were cited, and the data on the versions was much simplified.) The value of Huck, at that time, lay in the arrangement of the parallel gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke; John was not included). This, obviously, was sufficient to keep the book in print for nearly a century, but the editions have little value to the textual critic. For this reason, the remainder of this discussion will be devoted to Huck-Greeven, which simultaneously provided a new text (edited by Greeven), a much fuller apparatus (also by Greeven), and a modification of the synopsis itself, including more parallels as well as some portions of the gospel of John.
The text of the Greeven revision is somewhat problematic. Greeven claims that it averages about nine variations per chapter from the UBS/Nestle text. This would be about typical for a modern edition -- if anything, it's at the low end of the scale. The problem is, Greeven gives not a hint of his critical principles. Nor does Greeven give us a list of differences from UBS. Thus it is almost impossible to reconstruct his method. This makes it difficult to know how far to rely upon his text. Ny impression, in compiling its readings for the list of Most Uncertain Readings, is that, in those readings at least, it inclines very strongly toward the Byzantine text; the result is probably about like con Soden in its "feel," though the rate of actual agreements may not be excessively high.
The apparatus is as peculiar as the text. In no sense is it complete; the focus in upon parallels, almost to the exclusion of other variants. It is at first glance an easy apparatus to read; each reading begins with the lemma, followed by its supporters if they are relatively few, then a square bracket ] followed by the alternate readings and their support; different variation units are separated by large spaces and bold vertical lines. Deciphering the list of witnesses is a much different matter. Witnesses are grouped by type (though Greeven denies that his groups have any actual meaning), and cited by group symbols (e.g. l f are the Lake and Ferrar groups), and are cited in group order. However, Greeven does not list the order of the witnesses outside the four groups (Alexandrian, Lake, Ferrar, Soden). Nor are the contents of the various fragments listed explicitly. Thus it is almost impossible to be certain which manuscripts are actually cited within the notation Rpl (referring to all uncited uncials and the large majority of minuscules). It is best to trust the apparatus only where it cites a witness explicitly. And even there, it appears that many of the citations are from von Soden.
The citation of the versions, as opposed to the citing of the Greek witnesses, is excellent. All Old Latin witnesses are cited by name, with lacunae indicated. Where the Harklean Syriac attests to multiple readings, Greeven shows the nature of each variant. Where the manuscripts of the various Coptic versions do not show a consensus, Greeven indicates the number on each side of the reading. Unfortunately, the Armenian and Georgian versions are not handled with anything like the same precision, but this is no reason to condemn the edition; most others treat these versions with equal disdain.
The list of Fathers cited is quite full and unusully detailed, listing both the language and the date of the author, and including at least a handful of Syriac, Coptic, and even Arabic texts as well as the Greek and Latin Fathers. A wide variety of Harmonies are also cited (under a symbol which implies they are versions of the Diatessaron, though this is not stated). The introduction gives a good concise description of these harmonies.
Great care must be taken to understand Greeven's apparatus, which is strongly dependent not only on the order of the witnesses, but on the typographic form in which they are presented (e.g. Or does not mean the same thing as Or, even though both refer to Origen).
To sum up, the apparatus of Greeven is very difficult, though it offers a wide variety of useful information, and does not list all the variants one would "expect" to find. Students are therefore advised not to rely solely upon it, but to use at least one other source -- both to get a full list of variants in a particular gospel and to check one's interpretation of the apparatus for the variants it does contain. Greeven can give a sense of the support for a reading. It cannot and does not give specifics capable of being transferred to another apparatus.
Sorry--had to cut it off here due to length. If you'd like I can finish the article.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 08:00:00 AM
He asked for one price of evidence so I gave him many. Of course I had to include some outside the Bible since atheist instantly reject the New Testament even though it has been historically accurate. But since Jesus is in it the atheist must reject it. The Atheist has already presupposed there is no God in their worldview.
All I need is the New Testament forget the other non biblical writers. There is plenty of reason to believe the New Testament is true. But I am certain no amount of evidence would say 90% of Atheist because they don't want there to be a God. They want to be their own God.
Translation: I've made up my mind, don't bother me with actual facts.
The simple truth is that it's physically impossible for the NT to be historically accurate because it's internally inconsistent. Even the core of the New Testament, the Gospels, don't agree with each other on the events in Jeshua bar-Joseph's life (if he even existed in the first place) or on the order in which they happened. Which makes them unreliable as historical documents.
And I don't want to be my own god. Then I wouldn't exist.
What you religious types never seem to get is that
evidence matters and that your word that the New Testament is valid is
not evidence. Evidence requires data that is outside of personal interpretation. If I say to you that pi equals approximately 3.14159, you can demonstrate that for yourself without having to take my word for it just by inscribing a circle and dividing its measured perimeter by its measured diameter. If I say to you that pi equals three, and then I demand that you take my word for it because an ancient book says so (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7%3A23&version=KJV), you have every right to tell me to get stuffed.
And on that basis, I tell you to get stuffed. Your book is
not evidence. Evidence is that which is independently verifiable. Your book doesn't mean a thing, any more than the Harry Potter series proves there's a school for wizards in Scotland -- there's precisely as much independent evidence for both.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on October 16, 2016, 03:55:32 PM
Of your many contributions, this is one of my favorites.
Don't take it as harsh criticism of our regulars ... metaphors aren't always as PC as I would like. It is directed in a friendly way to posters who are theists, who actually know something about theism ... that they don't see as much as they think they see (you have to consider non-theist positions, and it isn't either/or).
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 09:31:25 PM
Ok so basically what you are saying is we have no proof that the disciples even existed? Am I'm correct?
The whole New Testament is made up?
There were NT writers, and editors too. But they weren't disciples ... they were fabricators of fictions. Very powerful fictions it turns out.
trdsf - And I don't want to be my own god. Then I wouldn't exist.
You don't exist, and neither do I, we are both fictional characters. But not like you think. Think of a movie of Gulliver's Travels. Think of Lilliput coming off the page and into reality, with giant Gulliver. That is what we are like, fictional characters that are more real than Hollywood could ever manage. That is what incarnation amounts to.
Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2016, 11:09:30 PM
You don't exist, and neither do I, we are both fictional characters. But not like you think. Think of a movie of Gulliver's Travels. Think of Lilliput coming off the page and into reality, with giant Gulliver. That is what we are like, fictional characters that are more real than Hollywood could ever manage. That is what incarnation amounts to.
Speaking as a writer, I prefer to think that I exist. I might like to think that in a multiverse, there's somewhere that my multiple worlds exist, but alas, if they do, I don't have direct access to them beyond being able to open up a window in the back of my head and writing down everything I see, then ducking out of sight before anyone in there notices me.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 09:31:25 PMThe whole New Testament is made up?
The authors of the New Testament probably believed what they were writing, so in that sense I wouldn't say they were "making it up." Whenever someone brings up that "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument, I always default to the fourth option: maybe they were just mistaken.
Quote from: trdsf on October 16, 2016, 10:55:28 PM
Translation: I've made up my mind, don't bother me with actual facts.
The simple truth is that it's physically impossible for the NT to be historically accurate because it's internally inconsistent. Even the core of the New Testament, the Gospels, don't agree with each other on the events in Jeshua bar-Joseph's life (if he even existed in the first place) or on the order in which they happened. Which makes them unreliable as historical documents.
And I don't want to be my own god. Then I wouldn't exist.
What you religious types never seem to get is that evidence matters and that your word that the New Testament is valid is not evidence. Evidence requires data that is outside of personal interpretation. If I say to you that pi equals approximately 3.14159, you can demonstrate that for yourself without having to take my word for it just by inscribing a circle and dividing its measured perimeter by its measured diameter. If I say to you that pi equals three, and then I demand that you take my word for it because an ancient book says so (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7%3A23&version=KJV), you have every right to tell me to get stuffed.
And on that basis, I tell you to get stuffed. Your book is not evidence. Evidence is that which is independently verifiable. Your book doesn't mean a thing, any more than the Harry Potter series proves there's a school for wizards in Scotland -- there's precisely as much independent evidence for both.
Thanks for your Input. Could you explain in what way the Gospels are inconsistent? Headed to work so it may be a bit before I get back to you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 17, 2016, 02:14:00 AM
The authors of the New Testament probably believed what they were writing, so in that sense I wouldn't say they were "making it up." Whenever someone brings up that "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument, I always default to the fourth option: maybe they were just mistaken.
If the writers were Disciples of Jesus (Gospels) then and if they believed what they saw there is no way they were mistaken. Jesus performed many miracles right in front of them. Things you would remember forever and certainly not mistake for something else.
Things that would make them give up your Jewish religion and replace it for one (Christianity) that would most certainly lead to a lot of pain suffering and death in their life. But promise eternal life through Jesus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: trdsf on October 16, 2016, 11:54:48 PM
Speaking as a writer, I prefer to think that I exist. I might like to think that in a multiverse, there's somewhere that my multiple worlds exist, but alas, if they do, I don't have direct access to them beyond being able to open up a window in the back of my head and writing down everything I see, then ducking out of sight before anyone in there notices me.
This is what Elon Musk thinks too. We are in an alien computer simulation, like The Sims ... and like Moriarty in the Star Trek Next Gen episode, he wants to break out out of the master control program and stop being someone else's sub-routine, he wants to be a real boy, like Pinochio.
If you exist as something other than "you" ... then "you" don't exist. Human language doesn't have grammar for this situation. So if every character in the story is crowd sourced, then who is the author? We all are. As incarnate, we are both writer and written. Otherwise QM would be wrong ... you can't legitimately separate the observation from the observer ... classical physics is theist ... in that it posits a single omnipotent observer (see Bishop Berkeley 300 years ago) that is independent .. or in writing terms, the omnipotent narrator. For atheists, they say ... no omnipotent narrator allowed, only first person narration allowed. The idea of free will, is precisely that our position is somewhat independent of the rest of the universe ... but not completely, otherwise I could modify physics arbitrarily by free will (other than coming up with a better theory) aka miracles. But we are limited ... demigods not gods. Determinism is the idea that there are no first person narratives, only the omnipotent narrator.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 17, 2016, 02:14:00 AM
The authors of the New Testament probably believed what they were writing, so in that sense I wouldn't say they were "making it up." Whenever someone brings up that "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument, I always default to the fourth option: maybe they were just mistaken.
Like Shakespeare was mistaken? All humans are lunatics, liars and lords. It isn't either or. And we ware very mistaken as well.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 17, 2016, 06:44:23 AM
If the writers were Disciples of Jesus (Gospels) then and if they believed what they saw there is no way they were mistaken. Jesus performed many miracles right in front of them. Things you would remember forever and certainly not mistake for something else.
Things that would make them give up your Jewish religion and replace it for one (Christianity) that would most certainly lead to a lot of pain suffering and death in their life. But promise eternal life through Jesus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If so, then why did they wait 30/100 years after witnessing those wondrous things to write about it? And why in Greek and not Aramaic or Hebrew????
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 17, 2016, 09:08:03 AM
If so, then why did they wait 30/100 years after witnessing those wondrous things to write about it? And why in Greek and not Aramaic or Hebrew????
The first half of your question I don't have a answer for with out doing a little bit of looking. However I would say that they were busy establishing Churches and having it in writing was not as important as it would be later in life when many of the disciples and eye witnesses would be dying off.
Veterans still today write about the Vietnam war and their experiences. Does that mean their accounts are made up and false?
Why Greek? I believe this is a good explanation.
"Greek was the leading written and spoken language of the eastern Mediterranean world when Rome ruled the world during the New Testament period. Indeed, it remained the dominant language, especially in the large cities of Alexandria, Antioch, etc., until after the Arab Muslim conquest, long after the time the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D."
By the way I have not forgot you last question. I hope to answer that later tonight. If time allows.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll test your faith in me..its simple.. What is 2+2? 4 you say? WRONG! 2 isn't really 2 because I just rounded up to the nearest decimal of 1 9999999999/1000000000 so it's really 3.999999998.. Fuckers.. You failed and all going straight to hell! Hahaha!
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 17, 2016, 01:15:28 PM
Kaleb--The first half of your question I don't have a answer for with out doing a little bit of looking. However I would say that they were busy establishing Churches and having it in writing was not as important as it would be later in life when many of the disciples and eye witnesses would be dying off.
Me--Churches??? If it was important to build churches you would need people to put into them. You would need to compete with Temples. Writing about jesus and his unique accomplishments would be the easiest and quickest way to build those. Even today you cannot build a church in secret; you need to advertise to get one started. That argument seems more wishful hoping than anything else.
Kaleb-- Veterans still today write about the Vietnam war and their experiences. Does that mean their accounts are made up and false?
Me--The Vietnam War to Jesus; not a very good comparison. But in any case, it would be difficult to find anybody who was in Nam who did not write about it until the year 2000 or record their reaction in some fashion. Look at the number of letters that that war generated from those that were in it. Come on Kaleb, can you imagine you being taught by THE expert in anything you can think of, and not telling people of it, writing about it from the very beginning???? And I don't remember reading in the bible that jesus was a stealth wonder worker.
Kaleb--"Greek was the leading written and spoken language of the eastern Mediterranean world when Rome ruled the world during the New Testament period. Indeed, it remained the dominant language, especially in the large cities of Alexandria, Antioch, etc., until after the Arab Muslim conquest, long after the time the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D."
Me--I don't think where jesus is supposed to come from was in a Greek speaking area. He is supposed to have spoken Aramaic, not Greek. His disciples supposedly were common workers, and they did not speak Greek, but Aramaic. It is not plausible that suddenly they all spoke and wrote Greek; and not one of the NT writings discovered so far has been in Aramaic--all are Greek. The scholars all wrote and spoke Greek and it is odd that the NT original material dates to long after the fictional jesus is supposed to have died.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 17, 2016, 06:44:23 AM
If the writers were Disciples of Jesus (Gospels) then and if they believed what they saw there is no way they were mistaken. Jesus performed many miracles right in front of them. Things you would remember forever and certainly not mistake for something else.
Things that would make them give up your Jewish religion and replace it for one (Christianity) that would most certainly lead to a lot of pain suffering and death in their life. But promise eternal life through Jesus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
First of all, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. But even if they were, people misinterpret things they witness, or think they witnessed, all the time.
You can interview 1000's of people today, that have sincere beliefs that they were abducted by aliens.
Do you believe them?
Quote from: Simon Moon on October 17, 2016, 05:05:24 PM
First of all, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. But even if they were, people misinterpret things they witness, or think they witnessed, all the time.
You can interview 1000's of people today, that have sincere beliefs that they were abducted by aliens.
Do you believe them?
Matthew? John?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 17, 2016, 03:07:37 PM
Like I said I did not have a great answer for that one. However how do we know they did not right something just because we have not found it doesn't mean it was never written. Much like the atheist claims " just give science time"
The whole Greek Aramaic Hebrew thing is not really that important. How do you know the were not speaking while a scribe was translating into Greek? Also the New Testament was written closer to the time of the actual event then many other ancient documents and no one disputes them. (http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161017/056da1c66e1a83bdaee4129d0be09f36.jpg)
I'll answer your other claim from last night about how none of these New Testament writers even existed. Because if they did not then this whole discussion is pointless.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 16, 2016, 10:15:55 PM
We know that Paul existed. The other authors of the NT are unknown. Mark, for example, is attributed to Mark, but there is no evidence he wrote it. And even if a person by the name of Mark wrote it, we have no evidence of who he is nor when he wrote it. Paul is the first author of the NT--but he offers no autobiographical data for jesus. For him, the christ is an ethereal character and not flesh and blood type person. So, basically, we don't know the disciples even existed.
The NT made up? No, it exists. But it was crafted from among a very large number of writings to select from. And this was a process that lasted hundreds of years. And still, the NT is not a fully agreed upon compilation; and the same is true of the bible as a whole. Go into any christian book store and you can find hundreds of different versions of the bible. The NT was crafted by various people over the course of time. We know that the letters of Paul, for example, had text removed and added many times. The gospel of john is a collection of several authors. So, let's say the NT was engineered according to the wishes of various people over the course of a long time. The bible did not drop from the sky a finished product of god.
You admit Paul existed. So what is your take on him? Do you think he experienced what he experienced or he made up his portion?
As for the other disciples there is not a lot of evidence outside the Bible. But if these were ordinary men from no where, anyone of influence wouldn't care about them why would they write about them. The Jews were trying to shut them up along with everyone else.
James was real. He thought Jesus was crazy then he saw the resurrected Christ and became a follower. He was executed for his belief. Why would he die for a known lie?
I agree the Bible did not drop out of the sky a finished product. It is a collection of books put into one book. All the New Testament books speak the same message so if we had 100 more books in their would it matter. We know what the Gospel is and the basic things God expects of us as followers of Christ.
You said Paul's writings had stuff added and removed several times. Where did you receive this info? I'm not saying there isn't any I am legitimately curious.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Paul smoked ganja ... got sunstroke, was masochistic (hence the multiple un-excommunications). He was also a Kabbalist (travelled to the third heaven ... do you even know what that means). He failed utterly in his own lifetime .... but his followers did start something that grew. Some of his inauthentic letters were written by those folks ... such as the Epistle to the Ephesians. One of the most successful failures of all time. The Jewish authorities were right to try to kill him, and the Romans were correct to execute him (Nero is a god, not some Jewish urchin).
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 16, 2016, 08:13:30 AM
bethinking.org says
"Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans![24]
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament."
So by your logic many historical writings would be false such as these.
Click on picture
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161016/b54056d123c058b8eb60ce58c39da49e.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Talmud's supposed references to Jesus are a matter of debate, and are not universally accepted. From Wikipedia:
"Bart Ehrman, and separately Mark Allan Powell, state that the Talmud references are quite late (hundreds of years) and give no historically reliable information about the teachings or actions of Jesus during his life."
"Scholars debate whether the Talmud provides any evidence of Jesus as a historical individual. Van Voorst (2000) describes this as a spectrum of opinion:
"On one side stand Johann Maier (1978) and those broadly sympathetic to his conclusions such as John P. Meier and Jacob Neusner. Maier discounts accounts with no mention of the name Jesus, and further discounts those that do mention Jesus by name, such as Sanh. 43a and 107b, as later medieval changes.[48] Arguments against the current form of Talmudic references to Jesus being evidence of a historical individual include contextual evidence, such as chronological inconsistencies, for example the original contexts of accounts in the Tosefta and Talmud take place in different historical periods. Maier also views that the tradition first seen in the writings of Celsus can not be regarded as a reliable reference to the historical Jesus."
Furthermore, if Jesus were a real historical figure, who was attracting followers from all over, who had a reputation for performing miracles such as healing the sick and raising the dead, there would have been many people writing about it. Instead, we have people who weren't even alive in Jesus' lifetime writing about him, who were Christians themselves and hardly unbiased. And we have the Babylonian Talmud, which was put together at around the year 500 AD. Even the evidence that does exist is incredibly weak.
Talmud ... Jerusalem Talmud is 300 years earlier than the Babylonian Talmud. However the references are to Jewish opposition to Jewish Christians (traitors) and against Gentile Christians (damn Gentiles). Jewish people never honestly acknowledge (except as casuistry to defend Judaism) even the history of Jesus, let alone the theology. And most modern Jews deny the existence of Biblical miracles anyway. Christians shouldn't expect support from Jews, except for Nutty-Yahoo.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 17, 2016, 07:49:28 PM
Kaleb--You admit Paul existed. So what is your take on him? Do you think he experienced what he experienced or he made up his portion?
Me--Yeah, Paul existed. And he was the first writer of the NT; but he was not any eyewitness to the life of jesus. Did he experience what he experienced? Of course he did. But he interpreted what he experienced and then the future christians interpret his interpretation of his experience. Did he lie? Don't think so. Try this as an experiment. Read the NT in the order in which the books were written. You would then read Paul first (the accepted real Paul) , then Mark, Matthew, Luke/Acts and then John. You will get a different picture of jesus. Paul does not give us any biographical data for him and treats him more as an ethereal entity who visits earth and not a flesh and blood person. He is a gnostic more than a christian. If you read carefully, you will notice that in his letters, Paul does not quote what jesus said about various arguments, when that would have been the thing a person would do who is trying to win people over to his (and jesus') way of thinking. Odd, don't you think?
Kaleb--As for the other disciples there is not a lot of evidence outside the Bible. But if these were ordinary men from no where, anyone of influence wouldn't care about them why would they write about them. The Jews were trying to shut them up along with everyone else.
Me--You do realize that all of the disciples were Jews? There were no christians then. You seem to forget that all these men were chosen by god to play the roles they played. He created them and he created all that followed and all that came before. So, if that is the case and god wants his word to spread, he would not keep them secret, would he??? So, it matters not who these people were. They should have been able to make the world know what was going on and who was doing the 'going on' stuff. Instead we end up with men who are from a little known area of the world, speaking Aramaic or Hebrew and not Greek. When have men who did not write anything about the personification of god on earth, who was teaching a 'revolutionary' message, and doing unique and unheard of acts. Does that sound reasonable to you? And the fact there were no women involved in this--doesn't that seem a bit odd?
Kaleb-- James was real. He thought Jesus was crazy then he saw the resurrected Christ and became a follower. He was executed for his belief. Why would he die for a known lie?
Me--How do you know James was real? And you do realize that James (and Jesus/Joshua) was a popular name? So, which James? Donald Trump is a known and acknowledged liar; would some of his followers die for him? Yeah, they would. So, does that then, make Trump truthful? Because somebody dies for an idea/ideal does not make that idea/ideal truthful or even good.
Kaleb-- I agree the Bible did not drop out of the sky a finished product. It is a collection of books put into one book. All the New Testament books speak the same message so if we had 100 more books in their would it matter. We know what the Gospel is and the basic things God expects of us as followers of Christ.
Me--If you know the bible did not drop out of the sky a finished product, do you know the history of it; how it was formed? It is a fun study. No, all of the NT does not speak the same message. As for adding another 100 writings, well, if I remember correctly, there is a mention of at least another 85 gospels that were left on the cutting room floor. Not all have been found, but some have. Have you read another of those gospels that were rejected? Try it and see what difference it makes. If all christians know what god expects then why are there literally thousands and thousands of different sects of christianity? Christians don't agree with other christians believe. For example, aren't there several proper ways to be baptized?
Kaleb-- You said Paul's writings had stuff added and removed several times. Where did you receive this info? I'm not saying there isn't any I am legitimately curious.
Me--Yes I did. I will make a posting later giving more details.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 17, 2016, 06:21:44 PM
Matthew? John?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Matthew is 92% copied from Mark. An eyewitness would not have to copy another author. It wasn't until 150 CE that Matthew was attributed to this Gospel as the author, even though there is nothing in the Gospel itself to hint it was authored by Matthew. It was originally written in Greek. None of the alleged apostles would have spoken or written Greek.
John was not written until after 93 CE. It is anonymous. John, the brother of James, was killed by Herod Agrippa in 44 CE, 50 years before the Gospel of John was written. The oldest fragment of John is from 125 CE, and does not include the final chapter.
One of the biggest problems with John is that, even though it was written later, it contains
more details than earlier written gospels. Eyewitness, historical writing does not do that. Details don't increase when more time has passed from original events.
Hagiography behind the oldest synoptic gospel ...
Mark was with Paul and Barnabas in what is now Turkey, but he abandoned Paul's mission. Supposedly he ended up going to Rome with Peter instead ... and got gospel notes from Peter, before Peter was martyred during the Nero persecutions after the Great Fire. Meanwhile Paul went from Caesarea to Rome, was released with a slap on the wrist, went to Spain to preach, and on the way back thru Rome was arrested again for sedition. In the climate of the Neronian persecutions being seditious or Jewish or both wouldn't recommend you to the authorities. Paul was supposedly martyred in Rome around the same time as Peter. Then Mark, escaped to Alexandria, with the notes he took of Peter's preaching ... and founded the first Christian church in Egypt.
Not that I believe any of that, but that is the traditional story/explanation behind Mark's gospel ... which was edited at least once (to add a further expansion about the resurrection, in the original version it ends with the empty tomb and the women fleeing in panic). It was written in Greek, and for a Gentile audience. But Alexandria was the second biggest population of Jews in the world at that time. Clement of Alexandria ... writing 100 years later, confirms that story, but says that the gospel came in more than one version, the exoteric version and the esoteric version (in a disputed letter).
Quote from: Simon Moon on October 18, 2016, 01:08:50 PM
Matthew is 92% copied from Mark. An eyewitness would not have to copy another author. It wasn't until 150 CE that Matthew was attributed to this Gospel as the author, even though there is nothing in the Gospel itself to hint it was authored by Matthew. It was originally written in Greek. None of the alleged apostles would have spoken or written Greek.
John was not written until after 93 CE. It is anonymous. John, the brother of James, was killed by Herod Agrippa in 44 CE, 50 years before the Gospel of John was written. The oldest fragment of John is from 125 CE, and does not include the final chapter.
One of the biggest problems with John is that, even though it was written later, it contains more details than earlier written gospels. Eyewitness, historical writing does not do that. Details don't increase when more time has passed from original events.
How do you explain your date of 93 ad? Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 ad which none of the New Testament speaks of. Which leads me to believe and a lot of others that it was written prior to that time period.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 18, 2016, 05:02:25 PM
How do you explain your date of 93 ad? Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 ad which none of the New Testament speaks of. Which leads me to believe and a lot of others that it was written prior to that time period.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have read the arguments for an early Mark (prior to 70) and a later Mark. I tend to land on the later Mark. The following is a snippet from one site that gives some of the arguments for the later Mark:
We have an old thread that covers this here. The destruction of the Jerusalem Temple is taken as the biggest point in favor of a post-70 date.
As usual, /u/arquebus_x and /u/brojangles cover the high points (additions in brackets):
While it's true that Jerusalem didn't get properly sacked until 70, it was pretty clear right from the start that Jerusalem would have to fall if Rome was going to prevail. It was too heavily defended to be ignored. The siege took 7 months. At any point during that process, someone might have said, "Yup, all of this is probably going to come down."
Also, there was factional fighting in and around the Temple as far back as 68 CE. The idea that the Temple could be destroyed was not far-fetched.
So this might actually be a case of "foretelling" in a literary sense, where you have a writer making an educated guess about what's probably right around the corner.
So I for one am not convinced that the reference to the destruction of the Temple in 13:1-3 is a reference to a past event. I'm in the minority, however, and it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on. I simply find the post-Markan versions of the "apocalypse" (Matthew and Luke) to be more compelling as post-War retellings of a Markan mid-War description.
/u/brojangles picks up here:
Some other reasons are the anti-Jewish, anti-Petrine, Roman-apologetic polemic, which describe post-70 (or later) divisions between Paulinists and Jewish-Christians, Jesus saying there would be false prophets and "false Christs" anticipating schisms, heretical sects and possibly Gnostics. The mention that Christians would be "beaten in the Synagogues" which was a post-70 phenomenon.
The rending of the Temple veil is likely an allusion to the damaged veil that the Romans took from the Temple and displayed in Rome after 70.
Mark uses Latinisms which indicate a Roman provenance. [ Latinisms in Mark’s Gospel ]
Mark's story of the Gerasene demoniac sounds like an allusion to the Roman 10th Legion, which is the Legion that sieged and destroyed Jersualem, had a pig (a boar) for its emblem and was stationed near Gerasa for a while after 70.
In addition to all tis, I think a case can be made that Mark makes use of Josephus' Jewish War. In particular Josephus' passage about Jesus ben Ananius which is at least strikingly similar to Mark's description of Jesus before Pilate. I think it's too close to be a coincidence, but others' mileage may vary. [Comparison of Mark and Josephus's Jesuses here]
For a bullet pointed list instead, /u/zeichman really went the extra mile:
To summarize a number of arguments:
1) Mark 13:1-2 describes the destruction of the temple with far greater accuracy and specificity than generic discourse on the temple's fall (contrast, e.g., 1 Kgs 9:8; 1 En. 90.28-30; Josephus J.W. 6.300-309).
2) Mark 13:14 seems to refer to Vespasian, despite occasional arguments for the zealot Eleazar or the Emperor Gaius. The citation of the Danielic vision in Mark 13:14 parallels Josephus citation of Daniel's prophecy of the temple's fall in A.J. 10.276.
3) The fact that the various portents enumerated in Mark 13 are prompted by the question in Mark 13:1-2 as to WHEN the temple buildings will fall. In so doing, Mark explicitly encourages the reader to understand everything that follows in light of the temple's fall.
4) This is a more complex argument that isn't always easy to articulate. But Mark 14:57-58 and 15:29 slanderously attribute to Jesus the claim that he will destroy the temple and raise it again in three days. What is striking is that the controversy is over Jesus' role in bringing about the destruction -NOT whether or not the temple will actually fall. This assumes that the temple's fall was not a matter of controversy in Mark's context.
5) Another complex argument, but Eric Stewart has written a book arguing that Mark configures Jewish space away from the temple and synagogues and instead onto Jesus. Words that were normally used to describe activity related to those sites (e.g., language of gathering, ritualized activities) are relocated onto Jesus. Stewart contends that this is ultimately language of replacement. Though Stewart does not explicitly connect this with Markan dating, its relevance is obvious.
6) The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12) is an obvious allegory regarding the punishment of Jews for their rejection of Jesus. What is interesting is that the parallel in the Gospel of Thomas 65 (which is much more primitive than Mark's) omits any reference to punishment. This suggest the allegorization is part of Markan redaction.
7) The cursing of the fig tree links the notion of an unproductive fig tree and its destruction to an unproductive temple and its (eventual) destruction.
8) The tearing of the temple veil upon Jesus' death assumes some kind of divine causality that portends the entire temple's eventual destruction.
9) There are a few references that only make sense after the Jewish War. For instance the language of legion in Mark 5:1-20 only works after the War, since before the War the military in Palestine and the Decapolis was not legionary. As an analogy, a story wherein a demon named “Spetsnaz†is exorcized from a Crimean denizen should strike the reader as anachronistic in its politics if depicted as occurring in 2010; one would assume the story had been written after the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, in which the aforementioned special forces were active.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 18, 2016, 11:10:05 AM
I'm doing this from my phone so forgive me. I can't quote like your doing or at least I can't figure it out.
Luke wrote acts and was a witness with Paul for much of his journey.
Many of Paul's letter are to churches or saints within a region which means his writings are to existing Christians.
Yes I do know the disciples are Jewish. But the Jewish leadership were trying to silence them. You said they were Jewish and Gods chosen. I believe the fact they threw all this away for Jesus gives more credibility for Jesus. If they were already chosen then why would they need to leave the Jewish religion.? Something they took very seriously.
I believe the fact that God uses common men instead of people with much influence goes right along with what we see in the Bible and how God worked up to that point. God prefers to use ordinary men or even underdogs. Clearly it did not hinder the rapid spread of Christianity during those days.
How do I know the man who wrote James was Jesus brother the same one who was a martyr. Well I guess I did not see it with my own eyes there for I can't tell you with 100% certainty but there is enough evidence and I have no reason to believe otherwise. No evidence saying he is not or he was lying in other words.
How do you know if any ancient historical figures were real?
Someone dying for Donald Trump would be insanity unless they were trying to save his life. Donald Trump is man. Jesus is God and the source of our salvation and the disciples knew this to be fact because they saw with their own eyes. That's why they would die for him.
These other Gospels you speak of. Do they speak of the Gospel? The same Gospel that is themed throughout the Bible.
Is it possible the early church fathers thought the other Gospels had legitimate problems?
Is it also possible the other Gospels were redundant and were not close followers of Jesus?
Christians do have different beliefs based on the way they interpret the Bible. They cherry pic verses and read out of context and run with it rather then read it in context and look else where in scripture.
Christians however believe in the Gospel. And a active trust in him brings us salvation.
It seems Paul had a perfect understanding of who Jesus was.
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesâ€"all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.â€
â€â€Colossians‬ â€1:15-23‬ â€ESV‬‬
Every baptism in the Bible involved total immersion and the individual chose to follow Jesus. Any other form of Baptism is not baptism.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 17, 2016, 11:07:58 PM
The Talmud's supposed references to Jesus are a matter of debate, and are not universally accepted. From Wikipedia:
"Bart Ehrman, and separately Mark Allan Powell, state that the Talmud references are quite late (hundreds of years) and give no historically reliable information about the teachings or actions of Jesus during his life."
"Scholars debate whether the Talmud provides any evidence of Jesus as a historical individual. Van Voorst (2000) describes this as a spectrum of opinion:
"On one side stand Johann Maier (1978) and those broadly sympathetic to his conclusions such as John P. Meier and Jacob Neusner. Maier discounts accounts with no mention of the name Jesus, and further discounts those that do mention Jesus by name, such as Sanh. 43a and 107b, as later medieval changes.[48] Arguments against the current form of Talmudic references to Jesus being evidence of a historical individual include contextual evidence, such as chronological inconsistencies, for example the original contexts of accounts in the Tosefta and Talmud take place in different historical periods. Maier also views that the tradition first seen in the writings of Celsus can not be regarded as a reliable reference to the historical Jesus."
Furthermore, if Jesus were a real historical figure, who was attracting followers from all over, who had a reputation for performing miracles such as healing the sick and raising the dead, there would have been many people writing about it. Instead, we have people who weren't even alive in Jesus' lifetime writing about him, who were Christians themselves and hardly unbiased. And we have the Babylonian Talmud, which was put together at around the year 500 AD. Even the evidence that does exist is incredibly weak.
If some one is biased does that mean they are not capable of telling the truth?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 18, 2016, 05:51:38 PM
I have read the arguments for an early Mark (prior to 70) and a later Mark. I tend to land on the later Mark. The following is a snippet from one site that gives some of the arguments for the later Mark:
We have an old thread that covers this here. The destruction of the Jerusalem Temple is taken as the biggest point in favor of a post-70 date.
As usual, /u/arquebus_x and /u/brojangles cover the high points (additions in brackets):
While it's true that Jerusalem didn't get properly sacked until 70, it was pretty clear right from the start that Jerusalem would have to fall if Rome was going to prevail. It was too heavily defended to be ignored. The siege took 7 months. At any point during that process, someone might have said, "Yup, all of this is probably going to come down."
Also, there was factional fighting in and around the Temple as far back as 68 CE. The idea that the Temple could be destroyed was not far-fetched.
So this might actually be a case of "foretelling" in a literary sense, where you have a writer making an educated guess about what's probably right around the corner.
So I for one am not convinced that the reference to the destruction of the Temple in 13:1-3 is a reference to a past event. I'm in the minority, however, and it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on. I simply find the post-Markan versions of the "apocalypse" (Matthew and Luke) to be more compelling as post-War retellings of a Markan mid-War description.
/u/brojangles picks up here:
Some other reasons are the anti-Jewish, anti-Petrine, Roman-apologetic polemic, which describe post-70 (or later) divisions between Paulinists and Jewish-Christians, Jesus saying there would be false prophets and "false Christs" anticipating schisms, heretical sects and possibly Gnostics. The mention that Christians would be "beaten in the Synagogues" which was a post-70 phenomenon.
The rending of the Temple veil is likely an allusion to the damaged veil that the Romans took from the Temple and displayed in Rome after 70.
Mark uses Latinisms which indicate a Roman provenance. [ Latinisms in Mark’s Gospel ]
Mark's story of the Gerasene demoniac sounds like an allusion to the Roman 10th Legion, which is the Legion that sieged and destroyed Jersualem, had a pig (a boar) for its emblem and was stationed near Gerasa for a while after 70.
In addition to all tis, I think a case can be made that Mark makes use of Josephus' Jewish War. In particular Josephus' passage about Jesus ben Ananius which is at least strikingly similar to Mark's description of Jesus before Pilate. I think it's too close to be a coincidence, but others' mileage may vary. [Comparison of Mark and Josephus's Jesuses here]
For a bullet pointed list instead, /u/zeichman really went the extra mile:
To summarize a number of arguments:
1) Mark 13:1-2 describes the destruction of the temple with far greater accuracy and specificity than generic discourse on the temple's fall (contrast, e.g., 1 Kgs 9:8; 1 En. 90.28-30; Josephus J.W. 6.300-309).
2) Mark 13:14 seems to refer to Vespasian, despite occasional arguments for the zealot Eleazar or the Emperor Gaius. The citation of the Danielic vision in Mark 13:14 parallels Josephus citation of Daniel's prophecy of the temple's fall in A.J. 10.276.
3) The fact that the various portents enumerated in Mark 13 are prompted by the question in Mark 13:1-2 as to WHEN the temple buildings will fall. In so doing, Mark explicitly encourages the reader to understand everything that follows in light of the temple's fall.
4) This is a more complex argument that isn't always easy to articulate. But Mark 14:57-58 and 15:29 slanderously attribute to Jesus the claim that he will destroy the temple and raise it again in three days. What is striking is that the controversy is over Jesus' role in bringing about the destruction -NOT whether or not the temple will actually fall. This assumes that the temple's fall was not a matter of controversy in Mark's context.
5) Another complex argument, but Eric Stewart has written a book arguing that Mark configures Jewish space away from the temple and synagogues and instead onto Jesus. Words that were normally used to describe activity related to those sites (e.g., language of gathering, ritualized activities) are relocated onto Jesus. Stewart contends that this is ultimately language of replacement. Though Stewart does not explicitly connect this with Markan dating, its relevance is obvious.
6) The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12) is an obvious allegory regarding the punishment of Jews for their rejection of Jesus. What is interesting is that the parallel in the Gospel of Thomas 65 (which is much more primitive than Mark's) omits any reference to punishment. This suggest the allegorization is part of Markan redaction.
7) The cursing of the fig tree links the notion of an unproductive fig tree and its destruction to an unproductive temple and its (eventual) destruction.
8) The tearing of the temple veil upon Jesus' death assumes some kind of divine causality that portends the entire temple's eventual destruction.
9) There are a few references that only make sense after the Jewish War. For instance the language of legion in Mark 5:1-20 only works after the War, since before the War the military in Palestine and the Decapolis was not legionary. As an analogy, a story wherein a demon named “Spetsnaz†is exorcized from a Crimean denizen should strike the reader as anachronistic in its politics if depicted as occurring in 2010; one would assume the story had been written after the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, in which the aforementioned special forces were active.
None of that was convincing at all. I believe who ever wrote some of that is not reading Mark correctly. Especially Mark 13:1-2.
Jesus was not talking about actual destruction of the temple. He was basically saying everything the temple stood for will be destroyed and he will raise himself up in three days which is the new covenant.
The Jews took him literally.
But let's forget Mark. What about every single other book in the New Testament? No mention of this major event that lasted a while.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 18, 2016, 07:06:09 PM
I'm doing this from my phone so forgive me. I can't quote like your doing or at least I can't figure it out.
To be fair, I really hate the way he handles quotes, too. Protip for
@Mike Cl: Cutting up a post with the
Quotequote
tags is much more readable than the format you've been using.
Back on track: Actually wanting to rape and murder and pillage and enslave and ... and having God being the only thing that keeps you from that life of 'sin' and 'wickedness' seems like a good reason for me for that someone to believe in a God.
"I don't understand it. What stops you from killing and stealing? I know if I didn't have God, I would kill and steal every chance I get, because God is the only reason I don't do those things."
- Source: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111110180935AAGEEPz (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111110180935AAGEEPz) (Poster seems trolly, but I've heard this uttered in earnest before.)
Yeah, then I'm glad you're convinced you're watched 24/7 by someone with the power to burn you in a lake of fire for all eternity.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 18, 2016, 05:51:38 PM
I have read the arguments for an early Mark (prior to 70) and a later Mark. I tend to land on the later Mark. The following is a snippet from one site that gives some of the arguments for the later Mark:
We have an old thread that covers this here. The destruction of the Jerusalem Temple is taken as the biggest point in favor of a post-70 date.
As usual, /u/arquebus_x and /u/brojangles cover the high points (additions in brackets):
While it's true that Jerusalem didn't get properly sacked until 70, it was pretty clear right from the start that Jerusalem would have to fall if Rome was going to prevail. It was too heavily defended to be ignored. The siege took 7 months. At any point during that process, someone might have said, "Yup, all of this is probably going to come down."
Also, there was factional fighting in and around the Temple as far back as 68 CE. The idea that the Temple could be destroyed was not far-fetched.
So this might actually be a case of "foretelling" in a literary sense, where you have a writer making an educated guess about what's probably right around the corner.
So I for one am not convinced that the reference to the destruction of the Temple in 13:1-3 is a reference to a past event. I'm in the minority, however, and it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on. I simply find the post-Markan versions of the "apocalypse" (Matthew and Luke) to be more compelling as post-War retellings of a Markan mid-War description.
/u/brojangles picks up here:
Some other reasons are the anti-Jewish, anti-Petrine, Roman-apologetic polemic, which describe post-70 (or later) divisions between Paulinists and Jewish-Christians, Jesus saying there would be false prophets and "false Christs" anticipating schisms, heretical sects and possibly Gnostics. The mention that Christians would be "beaten in the Synagogues" which was a post-70 phenomenon.
The rending of the Temple veil is likely an allusion to the damaged veil that the Romans took from the Temple and displayed in Rome after 70.
Mark uses Latinisms which indicate a Roman provenance. [ Latinisms in Mark’s Gospel ]
Mark's story of the Gerasene demoniac sounds like an allusion to the Roman 10th Legion, which is the Legion that sieged and destroyed Jersualem, had a pig (a boar) for its emblem and was stationed near Gerasa for a while after 70.
In addition to all tis, I think a case can be made that Mark makes use of Josephus' Jewish War. In particular Josephus' passage about Jesus ben Ananius which is at least strikingly similar to Mark's description of Jesus before Pilate. I think it's too close to be a coincidence, but others' mileage may vary. [Comparison of Mark and Josephus's Jesuses here]
For a bullet pointed list instead, /u/zeichman really went the extra mile:
To summarize a number of arguments:
1) Mark 13:1-2 describes the destruction of the temple with far greater accuracy and specificity than generic discourse on the temple's fall (contrast, e.g., 1 Kgs 9:8; 1 En. 90.28-30; Josephus J.W. 6.300-309).
2) Mark 13:14 seems to refer to Vespasian, despite occasional arguments for the zealot Eleazar or the Emperor Gaius. The citation of the Danielic vision in Mark 13:14 parallels Josephus citation of Daniel's prophecy of the temple's fall in A.J. 10.276.
3) The fact that the various portents enumerated in Mark 13 are prompted by the question in Mark 13:1-2 as to WHEN the temple buildings will fall. In so doing, Mark explicitly encourages the reader to understand everything that follows in light of the temple's fall.
4) This is a more complex argument that isn't always easy to articulate. But Mark 14:57-58 and 15:29 slanderously attribute to Jesus the claim that he will destroy the temple and raise it again in three days. What is striking is that the controversy is over Jesus' role in bringing about the destruction -NOT whether or not the temple will actually fall. This assumes that the temple's fall was not a matter of controversy in Mark's context.
5) Another complex argument, but Eric Stewart has written a book arguing that Mark configures Jewish space away from the temple and synagogues and instead onto Jesus. Words that were normally used to describe activity related to those sites (e.g., language of gathering, ritualized activities) are relocated onto Jesus. Stewart contends that this is ultimately language of replacement. Though Stewart does not explicitly connect this with Markan dating, its relevance is obvious.
6) The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12) is an obvious allegory regarding the punishment of Jews for their rejection of Jesus. What is interesting is that the parallel in the Gospel of Thomas 65 (which is much more primitive than Mark's) omits any reference to punishment. This suggest the allegorization is part of Markan redaction.
7) The cursing of the fig tree links the notion of an unproductive fig tree and its destruction to an unproductive temple and its (eventual) destruction.
8) The tearing of the temple veil upon Jesus' death assumes some kind of divine causality that portends the entire temple's eventual destruction.
9) There are a few references that only make sense after the Jewish War. For instance the language of legion in Mark 5:1-20 only works after the War, since before the War the military in Palestine and the Decapolis was not legionary. As an analogy, a story wherein a demon named “Spetsnaz†is exorcized from a Crimean denizen should strike the reader as anachronistic in its politics if depicted as occurring in 2010; one would assume the story had been written after the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, in which the aforementioned special forces were active.
Also Frank Turek and Norman Geisler say in " I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"
" Luke records the deaths of two Christian martyrs Steven and James the brother of John, but his account ends with two of its primary leaders Paul and James the brother of Jesus still living. Acts ends abruptly with Paul under house arrest in the Rome and there's no mention of James having died we know from Clement of Rome, writing in the first century, and from other early church fathers that Paul was executed sometime during the reign of Nero, which ended in A.D. 68. And we know from Josephus that James was killed in 62 so we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the book of acts was written before 62.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 18, 2016, 07:08:01 PMIf some one is biased does that mean they are not capable of telling the truth?
It means they have an agenda. Convincing people of the religion is the goal of Christianity, so of course the few Christians literate enough to write are going to do just that. What you need for credible evidence are writings from Jesus' contemporaries who were not members of his following. Hell, if you could even find anything from his followers who saw him in person, your sources would be more credible.
The Gospels do not count as such because of reasons others have mentioned. Only one of the four Gospels, John, had an author's name attached to it, and it was supposedly written by someone gathering information after Jesus' death. And unfortunately, the "go ask the people still alive" argument used to build its credibility no longer works, if it ever did.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 17, 2016, 06:40:02 AM
Thanks for your Input. Could you explain in what way the Gospels are inconsistent? Headed to work so it may be a bit before I get back to you.
If you really want to play the ignorant and innocent game, fine, but you've just demonstrated that you have not actually
read the gospels, if you genuinely think they're free from contradictions.
Let's start with the big one, the earthquake and zombie jamboree that Matthew said happened at the moment Jeshua bar-Joseph died, and that somehow Mark, Luke and John all missed:
Quote from: Matthew 27
51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
One would think that would be considered a reasonably noteworthy event. Even if Luke, Mark and John failed to see any of the walking, talking dead, the idea that they missed an earthquake timed
at the precise moment of Jeshua's decease is ludicrous.
You have a choice. Either Matthew is right, or the other three are. It is not possible to reconcile these accounts so that they're all four consistent. At least one book of the New Testament
must be factually inaccurate, and that leaves you with either a book to be interpreted but not taken literally, or a deliberate embrace of falsehood if you insist on literality.
And if one book is inaccurate, why not another? Why not all of them?
And needless to say, this is far from the only contradiction. The gospels fail to agree on most details of the Jeshua narrative (http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/).
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 18, 2016, 08:40:29 PM
It means they have an agenda. Convincing people of the religion is the goal of Christianity, so of course the few Christians literate enough to write are going to do just that. What you need for credible evidence are writings from Jesus' contemporaries who were not members of his following. Hell, if you could even find anything from his followers who saw him in person, your sources would be more credible.
The Gospels do not count as such because of reasons others have mentioned. Only one of the four Gospels, John, had an author's name attached to it, and it was supposedly written by someone gathering information after Jesus' death. And unfortunately, the "go ask the people still alive" argument used to build its credibility no longer works, if it ever did.
Atheist authors have a agenda and are biased. Does it mean they to are making it all up. Or are they telling absolute truth.
There are writings referencing Jesus outside his followers I have shared that already.
What would be acceptable from his followers who have seen him?
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of lifeâ€" the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to usâ€" that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.â€
â€â€1 John‬ â€1:1-3‬ â€ESV‬‬
“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.â€
â€â€2 Peter‬ â€1:16‬ â€ESV‬‬
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 18, 2016, 09:46:01 PMAtheist authors have a agenda and are biased. Does it mean they to are making it all up. Or are they telling absolute truth.
As mentioned before, atheists are defined by their a lack of belief in gods, not by a belief that gods don't exist. So no, they do not have an agenda.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 18, 2016, 09:46:01 PMThere are writings referencing Jesus outside his followers I have shared that already.
None that I've seen have been credible.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 18, 2016, 09:46:01 PMWhat would be acceptable from his followers who have seen him?
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of lifeâ€" the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to usâ€" that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.â€
â€â€1 John‬ â€1:1-3‬ â€ESV‬‬
Not this one, because it was written around 95â€"110 AD by unknown authors. It is traditionally
believed to have been written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of John, but as I mentioned earlier, the book itself claims that it was collecting information about Jesus after he had already died. The author, if he was who he claimed to be, never saw Jesus. The source of his information was hearsay, from people who claimed to have seen Jesus. If Jesus died in 36 AD, there were at best 59 years in between Jesus' death and the writing of this verse. The average life expectancy in First Century Palestine was 29 years, meaning that it is highly unlikely that anyone could have found any genuine eyewitnesses of Jesus' miracles during that time.
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 18, 2016, 09:46:01 PM“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.â€
â€â€2 Peter‬ â€1:16‬ â€ESV‬‬
For the Petrine epistles, although the books say they were written by the disciple Peter, they are widely believed to have two different authors. It is highly unlikely that a common fisherman could have been literate enough to write in Greek. And like all books of the New Testament, it is estimated to have been written long after Jesus' death, in the range of 60-112 AD. This, of course, means that the book was likely a forgery.
"The Jews took him literally." ... you know, you just offended the Holy Spirit, Kaleb ... so you can't be forgiven even by Jesus' the Jew. The Gentile Church has been anti-semitic, and therefore damned ... since about 135 CE or earlier. Certainly by 325 CE at the latest (when Constantine the Mafioso took it over).
Quote from: Kaleb5000 on October 18, 2016, 09:46:01 PM
Atheist authors have a agenda and are biased. Does it mean they to are making it all up. Or are they telling absolute truth.
My only agendas when writing are to entertain when writing fiction, and to seek that which is demonstrable and repeatable and dependent on data and observation (hopefully still entertainingly) when not writing fiction.
And I will claim those agendas proudly. My bias is for the reality of reality.
MY only purpose is to examine evidence. And when it comes to religious texts and beliefs, there is none I can find. There is no Jesus, or Allah, or Jehovah, Vishnu, Mithra, or Osiris. All are equally unreal and idiotic to me.
Anyone is free to have a religion. If you want to believe in superstitious nonsense, that is your business. But when you try to inflict that nonsense on ME, that is MY business. I will fight you on THAT!
So keep your bizarre beliefs to yourself. Stop bothering the real world with them.
wasnt even on the forum when this topic was started...
A good reason to believe in a god would be that someone could take you to the god's house and show it to you. Another good reason to believe in a god would be when you could make an appointment to meet.
Without either of these a rational person would have to consider one of the following statements to be true:
1 the god got bored with earth and went somewhere else
2 the god has never been to earth
3 the god got old and died already
4 the god never existed
Irrational people may still believe the god exists without proof. They may even get out some holy book as proof. Some may pull out a Bible, others a Quran, maybe the Book of Song, or the Mahab Harata. Each comes with its own unproven assertions.
...There are people older than 18yrs that still believe Santa Claus is real; without any evidence
Quote from: fencerider on December 03, 2016, 04:02:00 PM
wasnt even on the forum when this topic was started...
A good reason to believe in a god would be that someone could take you to the god's house and show it to you. Another good reason to believe in a god would be when you could make an appointment to meet.
Without either of these a rational person would have to consider one of the following statements to be true:
1 the god got bored with earth and went somewhere else
2 the god has never been to earth
3 the god got old and died already
4 the god never existed
Irrational people may still believe the god exists without proof. They may even get out some holy book as proof. Some may pull out a Bible, others a Quran, maybe the Book of Song, or the Mahab Harata. Each comes with its own unproven assertions.
...There are people older than 18yrs that still believe Santa Claus is real; without any evidence
Actually I've been to several cathedrals and churches myself. I admire good architecture, and didn't need a guide.
I use the following definition for 'belief':
The psychological state in which one accepts a proposition or premise to be true.
The reason to accept a proposition or premise to be true, is to be convinced. The only good reasons to be convinced that a proposition or premise is true, is demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument.
One should always proportion the strength of their belief on the amount and quality of demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument available for the proposition or premise under question.
There sure is a lot of blaming the atheist in this thread. If we don't accept that voodoo is real it's not because there is anything wrong with the unsubstantiated fantastical claims of magic. No, it's because we are so heavily biased against fantastical magical beliefs. I mean, think about it. If someone wants to sell you a house that they take you to and show you around in, THEN it's reasonable to ask them to prove that they outright own the house, there are no liens on it or judgements against it and that they have every right to sell it. But when someone claims that if you just give them 10% of your money for the rest of your life and do everything they say then after you die, you'll live forever, well then it is COMPLETELY unreasonable to ask them for some evidence to that claim and of course only an incredibly biased person would ever ask for evidence for this completely ordinary claim.
It never ceases to amaze me how these people can twist their minds around so that, in their heads, we are being utterly unreasonable for asking for one shred of evidence for their fantastical claims of magic. It just boggles the mind how someone can claim that after you die you'll live forever under ANY circumstance and simply expect people to just accept that as truth, ESPECIALLY when they want something from you in order to achieve this immortality after death, a concept which, itself, makes no fucking sense!
The average Christian doesn't know much about Christianity. The average Bible reader doesn't know much about the Bible. Often former Christians do! So Randy argues Church, and others argue Bible. Unfortunately, what you accept as evidence depends on your definitions. Suppose you have a wrong definition of what a dog is. I bring a dog to you and claim that it is a dog. You correctly, from your POV, say ... that isn't a dog. The trick with propaganda, is to get you be define things in a way that is at variance with reality. To put you deliberately into a false consciousness. Even with out propaganda, the average person at age 20 is in a false consciousness anyway. If they realize this, it may take another 20 years to escape their false consciousness, and be able to see reality at all.
So when I say, that my right hand, is proof of G-d ... that makes no sense, if you don't understand my words. From your POV, you will naturally say ... that doesn't prove anything, let alone prove G-d. And everyone likes to claim that they may have been in a false consciousness in the past, but they have escaped that, that they are in reality now ;-) If your perception, was the same as my perception ... which I learned over 60 years of indoctrination and escape from indoctrination ... then you would say ... yes, Baruch, your right hand is proof of G-d ... and so is mine. We can use the same language, even the same language ... and yet communication fails. That is because truth isn't in the words, but in the person speaking and the other person hearing ... they are the truth, not any statements made.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:12:08 PM
God reveals himself in many ways, through his creation, through his word and trough his son for example.
I thought "His Son" and "His Word" were supposed to be the same thing... :headscratch:
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 03:13:04 PMIs it impossible for the Christian God to exist?
Yes, because the Christian God is a
theistic God, and so cannot logically exist. The concept comes with too many
incompatible properties (http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html), making it logically inconsistent.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:44:48 PM
There is only one God and if it's not the God of the Bible it's not a God at all...
How do you know?
Your belief is based on wishful thinking, nothing more. You simply want the divine ideal to exist, and so you choose to believe that it does. Read your Bible if you're so enamored of the Christian God - you may find you don't like it as much as you currently think.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 06, 2016, 05:11:37 PM
How do you know?
Your belief is based on wishful thinking, nothing more. You simply want the divine ideal to exist, and so you choose to believe that it does. Read your Bible if you're so enamored of the Christian God - you may find you don't like it as much as you currently think.
Yeah. I wouldn't call the god of the Bible the "divine ideal." A god that kills millions and tortures the vast majority of people for an eternity in Hell simply for not stroking his ego, even including people who had never heard of him, is not the kind of Heavenly Father I would choose to worship and imitate.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 06, 2016, 05:02:12 PM
I thought "His Son" and "His Word" were supposed to be the same thing... :headscratch:
In this context, son and word are an oxymoron. Not even theologians know what those words mean together, in this context.
Quote from: Baruch on December 06, 2016, 07:37:09 PM
In this context, son and word are an oxymoron. Not even theologians know what those words mean together, in this context.
Don't forget the light. He is also the "light."
I don't know what the intentions of the ancient writers were. Perhaps to sound poetic by being cleverly vague. Or maybe that was just the typical muddled headed thinking of people of the time. But poetry lends itself to mysticism and incantations. So the Bible becomes more supernatural, being pushed along by magical sounding poetry that makes no sense. When we were kids, magic words were fun like that. We would stand in front of a brick wall and in our best low and ominous voice, we would chant "Open Sess-a-mee". Nothing would happen so we would tell each other that we didn't say it in the right way. And then we would laugh at our moment of fantasy, and continue on our way to the playground.
Perhaps the writers of King James had a penchant for poetry and wove some of the "magic" in during the translations. Writers of the day, and especially before, had no knowledge base to work with, so writing had to rely heavily on word smithing to gain the King's favor. And in the time of the first writings, I don't think people read to learn about the latest discoveries in medicine or astronomy. Those that could read were part of the power elite, and probably looked to the Bible for lessons in sounding all "hoity toity" to the masses.
The Bible: The most unfathomable compilation of ancient writings, where gibberish is second only to nonsense. You won't learn how to fix a lawn mower, or make a decent plow share. Its lessons are much more than that. It teaches us to pretend to know the unknowable. Clutch it firmly and close to your chest while talking to others on the steps of the church on Sunday morning. Let passing drivers see that the Bible is always close to your heart, and by clutching it firmly in your grasp, others will know that you will never let go, as you stand gazing skyward in the light and grace of the Lord for all to see.
I think 'the Light' is a reference to the sun. In that area and time (Biblical Jesus) sun worship was important and widespread. I'm sure Christmas is rooted in things like 'The coming of the Son (Sun); the Son (sun) is reborn; and all the other references to the Son are really references to the pagan worship of the sun. At one point in this season, the sun reaches the point where it shines the least for the entire year; and then, the next day it shines a little more, and is in effect reborn. I would imagine this time was celebrated from all time. I can imagine the ancients being pretty tired of the middle of winter and the lack of food right about in this time frame. Christians just took over a pagan celebration--not an original belief in their tiny little brains.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 07, 2016, 09:24:16 AM
I think 'the Light' is a reference to the sun. In that area and time (Biblical Jesus) sun worship was important and widespread. I'm sure Christmas is rooted in things like 'The coming of the Son (Sun); the Son (sun) is reborn; and all the other references to the Son are really references to the pagan worship of the sun. At one point in this season, the sun reaches the point where it shines the least for the entire year; and then, the next day it shines a little more, and is in effect reborn. I would imagine this time was celebrated from all time. I can imagine the ancients being pretty tired of the middle of winter and the lack of food right about in this time frame. Christians just took over a pagan celebration--not an original belief in their tiny little brains.
That makes sense. I always thought "light" meant "knowledge", but that may well be a context of modern day English, and influenced by the commonly held Christian interpretation of "knowing" that which is logically unknowable through a belief in God.
Quote from: SGOS on December 07, 2016, 12:52:42 PM
That makes sense. I always thought "light" meant "knowledge", but that may well be a context of modern day English, and influenced by the commonly held Christian interpretation of "knowing" that which is logically unknowable through a belief in God.
I think you are right, SGOS, that 'light' meant knowledge as well. I would also think that from the beginning of our species, we realized that the sun was the bringer of life. Without the sun there would be no life. So, if Jesus was the light, he would not only be the bringer of knowledge, but of the very life of earth itself. And the christians being the clever devils they are, took all the pagan symbols and holidays and sayings and incorporated them into their own religion--and called it unique. And it succeeded far too well!
I always assumed that being "light of the world" just meant that he was holy and a source of hope and goodness, as opposed to the world's darkness that represents evil and hopelessness. The writer may have been intentionally vague, to make the reader come up with their own answers, to fill it in with whatever makes the most sense and means the most to them.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 07, 2016, 02:26:36 PM
I always assumed that being "light of the world" just meant that he was holy and a source of hope and goodness, as opposed to the world's darkness that represents evil and hopelessness. The writer may have been intentionally vague, to make the reader come up with their own answers, to fill it in with whatever makes the most sense and means the most to them.
It seems to me that the entire bible was cobbled together from material like that. One can read any number of meanings into much of it. I think that was done on purpose.
Quote from: SGOS on December 07, 2016, 07:32:54 AM
Those that could read were part of the power elite, and probably looked to the Bible for lessons in sounding all "hoity toity" to the masses.
And that explains all the "
thees" and "
thous" they spew when they want others to see just how pious they are. So they can get away with stuff because they're so far above suspicion due to their "love of God's Holy Word."
As thou hast said, the Bible was constructed to match the editors preconceived notions of their god. Listen to what I tell thee and save thyself from trouble. Peradventure a saucer full of little green men landed, and thou didest not give to them a Bible, then they could not perceive the existence of that god.
The only meaningful "bible" would be one that was written at the time by those who could demonstrate the same-time existence of "him". And guess what? There isn't one...
Free fried chicken would be a good reason to believe whatever you want to tell me. I don't know what the hell is up with the stereotype with black people and fried chicken. I'm white and I don't know ANYBODY who doesn't like fried chicken? It's my favorite food. You have fried chicken Friday at your church and I'll worship the hell out of your fairy every Friday...after dinner.
Quote from: widdershins on December 09, 2016, 04:25:21 PM
Free fried chicken would be a good reason to believe whatever you want to tell me. I don't know what the hell is up with the stereotype with black people and fried chicken. I'm white and I don't know ANYBODY who doesn't like fried chicken? It's my favorite food. You have fried chicken Friday at your church and I'll worship the hell out of your fairy every Friday...after dinner.
Commensality ... public sharing food as a social act ... is a fundamental religious act going back to the Stone Age. In tribal society is it called a potlatch.
Saying grace before or after eating, or both ... is also a fundamental prayer practice.
The religion of the hermit and the ascetic ... isn't much to right home about.
oh wow!!! I didn't know it was that easy. If I did I would have started making fried chicken a long time ago.
Quote from: widdershins on December 09, 2016, 04:25:21 PM
Free fried chicken would be a good reason to believe whatever you want to tell me. I don't know what the hell is up with the stereotype with black people and fried chicken. I'm white and I don't know ANYBODY who doesn't like fried chicken? It's my favorite food. You have fried chicken Friday at your church and I'll worship the hell out of your fairy every Friday...after dinner.
They know. They have only begun to test the limits of the fried chicken.
(http://www.churchs.com/img/share/churchs_chicken_social.gif)
There are surprisingly many reasons to believe in the Deity. We ourselves are proof that Existence is at least equal to us, and then superior because it created us. None of us created ourselves, so it is essential that the first being have no physical body, but have the capabilities of an powerful entity. This means that existence itself has intellect and person.
Quote from: godmessenger on January 18, 2017, 11:28:32 PM
There are surprisingly many reasons to believe in the Deity. We ourselves are proof that Existence is at least equal to us, and then superior because it created us. None of us created ourselves, so it is essential that the first being have no physical body, but have the capabilities of an powerful entity. This means that existence itself has intellect and person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jduMIUt9M3M
Quote from: godmessenger on January 18, 2017, 11:28:32 PM
There are surprisingly many reasons to believe in the Deity. We ourselves are proof that Existence is at least equal to us, and then superior because it created us. None of us created ourselves, so it is essential that the first being have no physical body, but have the capabilities of an powerful entity. This means that existence itself has intellect and person.
I don't know about you, but my mom and dad created me. We (I guess you mean humans) are proof of evolution--your fictional god has nothing to do with it. As for being superior, I find your fiction to be inferior to other fictions, such as Bugs Bunny and Paul Bunyan. The first being had no body? Then how was it a being??? Oh yeah, I'm sure you believe in nonmaterial material things. It does seem that some existence has intellect, but you seem to be totally lacking it.
Quote from: godmessenger on January 18, 2017, 11:28:32 PMWe ourselves are proof that Existence is at least equal to us
(http://i.imgur.com/63p0KXD.gif)
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 19, 2017, 12:35:48 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/63p0KXD.gif)
It's the classic argument of "whatever created us must be greater than we are to be capable of doing so." The problem is that humanity is actively proving this argument wrong, and the proof is in your pocket. We create technology capable of doing things that our limited brains are incapable of doing unassisted, and it accomplishes those things almost instantly. And this technology is growing more and more intelligent every year. In other words, we have created things that are more intelligent than we are.
We've also created tools that are more powerful than we are, more precise than we are, more efficient than we are. There are few human traits that we have not done better in something else, and that list will continue to grow shorter. So why should we believe that it is logically necessary that something more powerful and more intelligent than we are must have created us?
Yes, as pagan followers of Daedalus and Icarus ... we do show we are incarnate manifestation of Hephaestus aka Vulcan. Live long and prosper ;-)
I'd probably believe in god, if I looked up in the sky, and saw a gigantic rainbow colored dildo crashing down on earth.
...
[spoiler](https://s27.postimg.org/w8tffzggj/rainbow_dildo.jpg)[/spoiler]
Quote from: Munch on January 20, 2017, 06:38:07 PM
I'd probably believe in god, if I looked up in the sky, and saw a gigantic rainbow colored dildo crashing down on earth.
...
[spoiler](https://s27.postimg.org/w8tffzggj/rainbow_dildo.jpg)[/spoiler]
That only happens at certain annual Japanese fertility festivals ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 20, 2017, 08:58:13 PM
That only happens at certain annual Japanese fertility festivals ;-)
Pretty sure I've read a hentai doujin featuring that exact plot.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/7d/7ddc1183eb1c63681443ee8df21b252c6ed4440bfc135bd0be04c0ee76fa4c12.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 19, 2017, 12:35:48 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/63p0KXD.gif)
Interesting clip where character finds out that he and his girlfriend are both clones ... somewhat like in Genesis ;-)
so god disappears for 1000s of years and then reintroduces himself by destroying munch's house... ouch. I dont think your insurance is gonna cover that kind of damage.
We ourselves are proof of God. Nothing can give out what it doesn't possess already in store. The sun can't give more energy than it retains. I can't give out more money that I have on me. I can't do things that require knowledge that I don't have, etc. Get it, folks?
2nd proof: the nature of humans to conceive of eternal values. What is a collection of molecules doing conceiving of abstract concepts? Yet we do: God, math, geometry, love, hate, good, evil, existence and time. Animals don't do this. As theologian Thomas Aquinas said, if something exists in part in a subject, there is a whole from which that part is taken. So we are proof of a spiritual being, right?
3rd proof: Humans speak not only sounds, but the primary sequence, known in grammar as the "sentence". The sentence is "subject, verb, indirect object, preposition, and direct object. The primary sequence is cause, action, continuance, indefinite procedure (the directional pattern), and path (final result), because somewhere on a path a motion will come to rest. Ex. Joe threw the ball over the fence. The primary sequence is abstract nature. Why are humans connected to it?
4th proof: The creation of design forms. Design forms are physical matter forms with purpose: clothing, tools, writing, painting, etc. Nature (the elements) doesn't do this.
5th proof: The creation of plants and animals. These are design mechanisms that replicate themselves. Evolution is random elements somehow creating cells, organs, and appendages in succession, culminating in a creature that holds together despite the elements of the environment.
I have no idea what you're talking about - and neither do you...
Quote from: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:32:59 PM
We ourselves are proof of God. Nothing can give out what it doesn't possess already in store. The sun can't give more energy than it retains. I can't give out more money that I have on me. I can't do things that require knowledge that I don't have, etc. Get it, folks?
2nd proof: the nature of humans to conceive of eternal values. What is a collection of molecules doing conceiving of abstract concepts? Yet we do: God, math, geometry, love, hate, good, evil, existence and time. Animals don't do this. As theologian Thomas Aquinas said, if something exists in part in a subject, there is a whole from which that part is taken. So we are proof of a spiritual being, right?
3rd proof: Humans speak not only sounds, but the primary sequence, known in grammar as the "sentence". The sentence is "subject, verb, indirect object, preposition, and direct object. The primary sequence is cause, action, continuance, indefinite procedure (the directional pattern), and path (final result), because somewhere on a path a motion will come to rest. Ex. Joe threw the ball over the fence. The primary sequence is abstract nature. Why are humans connected to it?
4th proof: The creation of design forms. Design forms are physical matter forms with purpose: clothing, tools, writing, painting, etc. Nature (the elements) doesn't do this.
5th proof: The creation of plants and animals. These are design mechanisms that replicate themselves. Evolution is random elements somehow creating cells, organs, and appendages in succession, culminating in a creature that holds together despite the elements of the environment.
Are you alright there mate? Looks like you had a stroke or something.
Quote from: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:32:59 PM
We ourselves are proof of God. Nothing can give out what it doesn't possess already in store. The sun can't give more energy than it retains. I can't give out more money that I have on me. I can't do things that require knowledge that I don't have, etc. Get it, folks?
2nd proof: the nature of humans to conceive of eternal values. What is a collection of molecules doing conceiving of abstract concepts? Yet we do: God, math, geometry, love, hate, good, evil, existence and time. Animals don't do this. As theologian Thomas Aquinas said, if something exists in part in a subject, there is a whole from which that part is taken. So we are proof of a spiritual being, right?
3rd proof: Humans speak not only sounds, but the primary sequence, known in grammar as the "sentence". The sentence is "subject, verb, indirect object, preposition, and direct object. The primary sequence is cause, action, continuance, indefinite procedure (the directional pattern), and path (final result), because somewhere on a path a motion will come to rest. Ex. Joe threw the ball over the fence. The primary sequence is abstract nature. Why are humans connected to it?
4th proof: The creation of design forms. Design forms are physical matter forms with purpose: clothing, tools, writing, painting, etc. Nature (the elements) doesn't do this.
5th proof: The creation of plants and animals. These are design mechanisms that replicate themselves. Evolution is random elements somehow creating cells, organs, and appendages in succession, culminating in a creature that holds together despite the elements of the environment.
Hey--buddy--seek help.
Quote from: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:32:59 PM
We ourselves are proof of God. Nothing can give out what it doesn't possess already in store. The sun can't give more energy than it retains. I can't give out more money that I have on me. I can't do things that require knowledge that I don't have, etc. Get it, folks?
Uh, hello? I already debunked this bullshit argument on this page. We actively create technology that is smarter, stronger, more efficient, more accurate, and can do things we can't do ourselves. Our intelligence does not necessitate a bigger intelligence as a source. Get it, moron?
I am not sure you mean what you say. The things people build are not intelligent. We often use these things unintelligently. People have intelligence, if not wisdom. We don't know where human intelligence comes from, that is the theist/atheist argument. In my experience intelligence is inheritance from ancestors (going back to algae and bacteria) and the mysterious development of personal experience aka psychology. That much an atheist should agree to as well. But the development of human intelligence isn't something that can be investigated using controlled experiments, it takes billions of years. We can study how children develop, but that doesn't solve the bootstrap problem ... they are raised by adults, not by themselves. Children raised without adult supervision ... we are told anecdotally, are autistic and violent.
Quote from: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:32:59 PM
We ourselves are proof of God. Nothing can give out what it doesn't possess already in store. The sun can't give more energy than it retains. I can't give out more money that I have on me. I can't do things that require knowledge that I don't have, etc. Get it, folks?
Non-supported proposition. I don't currently possess the knowledge of what 2
31 or the hundredth digit of pi happens to be, but I can work it out (rather more laboriously, in the case of pi -- the series converges rather slowly). I can give out more money than I have on me, or I could if I were unethical enough to kite a check. I don't directly possess the knowledge to make a peach pie, having never made one, but I bet I could make an educated guess.
My earbuds make sound. The sound is not inherent in the earbud. I can make a paper airplane. Paper is not inherently aerodynamic.
Your 'argument' is untenable. Well, that
is inherent in it...
Quote from: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:32:59 PM
2nd proof: the nature of humans to conceive of eternal values. What is a collection of molecules doing conceiving of abstract concepts? Yet we do: God, math, geometry, love, hate, good, evil, existence and time. Animals don't do this. As theologian Thomas Aquinas said, if something exists in part in a subject, there is a whole from which that part is taken. So we are proof of a spiritual being, right?
Wrong.
Why shouldn't a collection of molecules, evolved over deep time to be able to comprehend its environment, conceive abstract concepts?
Also, there are some animals that can perform basic math. It's recently been demonstrated that dolphins use particular sounds to mean particular individuals -- we can call that a name, which suggests that dolphins possess a certain sense of self. Abstraction is more refined in humans, but it isn't present only in humans.
In any case, theologians' arguments can largely be dismissed out of hand as being non-testable. That's the nice thing about being a theologian -- you can just make stuff up, and there's no way to test it in any objective manner.
Quote from: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:32:59 PM
3rd proof: Humans speak not only sounds, but the primary sequence, known in grammar as the "sentence". The sentence is "subject, verb, indirect object, preposition, and direct object. The primary sequence is cause, action, continuance, indefinite procedure (the directional pattern), and path (final result), because somewhere on a path a motion will come to rest. Ex. Joe threw the ball over the fence. The primary sequence is abstract nature. Why are humans connected to it?
You're seriously hinging part of your "argument" (such that it is) on the fact that language exists, and is capable of describing events in order.
Yup, you have the necessary skills to be a theologian, all right.
Quote from: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:32:59 PM
4th proof: The creation of design forms. Design forms are physical matter forms with purpose: clothing, tools, writing, painting, etc. Nature (the elements) doesn't do this.
Nature "designs" things all the time. That's the whole point of evolution. What nature
doesn't do is decide ahead of time what it's going to make. Instead, life forms slowly evolve to fit the environment they inhabit.
Evolution doesn't say, "I better come up with an animal with a shaggy coat in case there's an ice age." Evolution is the process by whic an animal comes to fit its environment. If that environment changes, for example, if there happens to be an ice age, an animal with a slightly shaggier coat will probably be more likely to survive
and pass along shaggy-coat genes. As the cold persists, or deepens, animals that happen to have slightly better insulation will have statistically better chances of survival. And over extended periods of time, that turns a short-coated animal into a long-coated one.
No magic necessary. Just time.
Quote from: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:32:59 PM
5th proof: The creation of plants and animals. These are design mechanisms that replicate themselves. Evolution is random elements somehow creating cells, organs, and appendages in succession, culminating in a creature that holds together despite the elements of the environment.
Perfectly natural, no superstition required. All it takes is one self-replicating molecule and a few billion years, culminating in a creature that holds together
because of the elements of the environment.
The best reason to believe in God, in my opinion: if I'm wrong about God, I have nothing to lose, if the unbeliever is wrong about God, he loses everything.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 09:16:18 PM
The best reason to believe in God, in my opinion: if I'm wrong about God, I have nothing to lose, if the unbeliever is wrong about God, he loses everything.
That argument could be used to support literally anything.
Pray to Dagon and he'll bless your crops, improving yields. What do you have to lose?
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 27, 2017, 09:33:41 PM
That argument could be used to support literally anything.
Pray to Dagon and he'll bless your crops, improving yields. What do you have to lose?
I don't expect you to understand, you believe the Holy Bible is fiction. But if you go back far enough in your lineage you'll find that your folks didn't know Dagon, Madok, or the Greek gods, they knew Jehovah God, the God of the Bible. And He said:
Isaiah 45:5-6
I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 10:42:18 PMI don't expect you to understand, you believe the Holy Bible is fiction. But if you go back far enough in your lineage you'll find that your folks didn't know Dagon, Madok, or the Greek gods, they knew Jehovah God, the God of the Bible.
They were northern European, so it's Protestant for a few generations, Catholic for a bit longer, then paganism/animism back to the dawn of time (more likely than not, with the occasional doubting Thomas)
So...which one of my ancestors' many religions am I supposed to declare my loyalty towards, and why?
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 09:16:18 PM
The best reason to believe in God, in my opinion: if I'm wrong about God, I have nothing to lose, if the unbeliever is wrong about God, he loses everything.
I disagree. I have much to lose in believing in a fiction. You become dumb to maintain your belief. Belief requires no thinking--well, not critical thinking. You are giving your time, talent and treasure for a fiction. I don't fear your fiction, I don't miss being with those who believe in your fiction and I like the freedom to think and do as I think is correct to think and do. You are simply a willing slave.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 10:42:18 PM
I don't expect you to understand, you believe the Holy Bible is fiction. But if you go back far enough in your lineage you'll find that your folks didn't know Dagon, Madok, or the Greek gods, they knew Jehovah God, the God of the Bible.
Most of our ancestors weren't even animals -- we all share a lineage all the way back to the moment of abiogenesis and all but about the last ten thousand years of it was pre-literate. Not only were most of our ancestors not christian, most of them weren't even human.
And I don't
believe the bible is fiction, I
know it is from its own internal inconsistency. It is not possible for it to be a true document. Some bits of it may be, but it can not all be true.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 09:16:18 PM
The best reason to believe in God, in my opinion: if I'm wrong about God, I have nothing to lose, if the unbeliever is wrong about God, he loses everything.
Except that it applies to *any* god: what if it turns out it's Zeus and not Jehovah? You're just as hosed as everyone else.
Also, this assumes a god that can be placated by lip service. This isn't belief you're talking about here, this is merely the philosophical toss of a coin -- I can only assume that the agnostic thinks the coin landed on its edge. ;)
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 09:16:18 PM
The best reason to believe in God, in my opinion: if I'm wrong about God, I have nothing to lose, if the unbeliever is wrong about God, he loses everything.
god's pretty diabolical that way. Loving is laughable. It's like the Chinese government thought police. You believe what the government tells you or else. Well that's basically the same thing your god is doing. Believe in me or else!
Sorry but fear is not a good reason to believe something. Even if you do believe something out of fear how do you know you actually believe it and aren't just placating the god or gods? Surely they will know. In which case it is not just the unbeliever who is in trouble but also the fake believers.
Which kind are you?
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 09:16:18 PM
The best reason to believe in God, in my opinion: if I'm wrong about God, I have nothing to lose, if the unbeliever is wrong about God, he loses everything.
Actually, and not 100% sure if its a causal link, but I find life much more enjoyable since I became an atheist. Again, maybe it's not completely a causal link, but it very well might be. Losing that, if we only have one life to live, is losing a lot.
Add to the fact that I wouldn't worship a deity puts worshipping him and believing in him over being good to your fellow man and trying to make the world a better place anyway, so that doesn't give me any incentive.
And lastly; what if there is a God, but he's nothing like what you think him to be? What if the God did his best to hide himself from his creation, as would fit what we see, and values rational thinking and logic and science above anything? What if he sends to hell those who believe in a fake God to oblivion and only keeps those souls and minds that withstood the test with him for another plain of existance? Do I believe that? Hell, no. But it has the same weight to it as your idea, so it cancels your reason out.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 09:16:18 PM
The best reason to believe in God, in my opinion: if I'm wrong about God, I have nothing to lose, if the unbeliever is wrong about God, he loses everything.
Pascal's argument is a fail. Buddha is right, and you are reincarnated as a toad. There are a thousand gods ... which one please? For me, the god of Abraham, but the Buddha was a smart fellow too.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 10:42:18 PM
I don't expect you to understand, you believe the Holy Bible is fiction. But if you go back far enough in your lineage you'll find that your folks didn't know Dagon, Madok, or the Greek gods, they knew Jehovah God, the God of the Bible. And He said:
Isaiah 45:5-6
I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
Jews wrote the Bible, not G-d. As I Jew I am not ashamed to admit to this ... scam. Precious writing from Heaven goes back to Gilgamesh. Of course the Muslims make the same claim ... but they are all false. Writing comes from inside, not outside, as anyone who has ever composed a mere sentence, can attest.
Quote from: trdsf on January 28, 2017, 01:20:45 AM
Most of our ancestors weren't even animals -- we all share a lineage all the way back to the moment of abiogenesis and all but about the last ten thousand years of it was pre-literate. Not only were most of our ancestors not christian, most of them weren't even human.
And I don't believe the bible is fiction, I know it is from its own internal inconsistency. It is not possible for it to be a true document. Some bits of it may be, but it can not all be true.
G-d isn't consistent ... Aristotle was wrong. But because a human wrote it, you know the Bible is fiction. A purely logical thing, is a tautology, a mere abstract statement without any human content. Other logical statements are contingent or inconsistent ... but I am not going there. As best I can tell, any statement about reality, that is beyond an abstract truism ... is contingent. And hence free will. If I do this, then that will happen.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 10:42:18 PM
I don't expect you to understand, you believe the Holy Bible is fiction. But if you go back far enough in your lineage you'll find that your folks didn't know Dagon, Madok, or the Greek gods, they knew Jehovah God, the God of the Bible. And He said:
Isaiah 45:5-6
QuoteI am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
The Bible says the name of your God is Jealous, not Jehovah - or maybe that's just a nickname...
Exo 34:14
QuoteFor thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
A good reason to believe in God is not having to say you're sorry
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 28, 2017, 05:33:08 PM
A good reason to believe in God is not having to say you're sorry
So...being a Christian gives you an excuse for being an asshole?
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 28, 2017, 05:33:08 PM
A good reason to believe in God is not having to say you're sorry
Yeah, you can just say "God told me to do it...blame him."
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 28, 2017, 05:33:08 PM
A good reason to believe in God is not having to say you're sorry
Actually G-d needs to say "sorry" to all of us. But I am not holding my breath.
Quote from: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 07:10:28 PM
Actually G-d needs to say "sorry" to all of us. But I am not holding my breath.
Knowing you're a theist, hearing this from you confuses me.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 28, 2017, 07:14:27 PM
Knowing you're a theist, hearing this from you confuses me.
Don't assume that all theists worship G-d, I don't even like Her.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 28, 2017, 07:14:27 PM
Knowing you're a theist, hearing this from you confuses me.
It's less confusing if you've been paying attention to what he writes. He's actually quite insightful, if you can follow the myriad of obscure references he makes.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 28, 2017, 09:03:19 PM
It's less confusing if you've been paying attention to what he writes. He's actually quite insightful, if you can follow the myriad of obscure references he makes.
Longer entries, with full footnotes would take too long, and be too boring. If I can't put out a post in 1-5 minutes, then I am taking too long.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 28, 2017, 05:59:38 PM
So...being a Christian gives you an excuse for being an asshole?
Am I an asshole? You give yourself an excuse to be an asshole. God gave you free will!
Quote from: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 08:13:30 PM
Don't assume that all theists worship G-d, I don't even like Her.
But isn't the definition of "theist" one who worships a theistic type of God? It seems to me you'd be more of a deist, wouldn't you?
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 29, 2017, 05:01:58 PM
Am I an asshole? You give yourself an excuse to be an asshole. God gave you free will!
Oh, sorry. I forgot you're a Christian. Let me dumb this down for you with an example to show why what you said was stupid. And because I know you have the memory of a goldfish, I'll quote what you said again: "A good reason to believe in God is not having to say you're sorry"
Example:
*Person A is in a diner, carrying a steak knife when he trips and accidentally stabs Person B in the chest.*
Person B: "Holy crap! You stabbed me!"
Person A: "Well, I'm a Christian, so I don't have to apologize. But if you're not a Christian, I can tell you about Jesus so you don't go to Hell after you're done bleeding to death."
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2017, 05:32:48 PM
Oh, sorry. I forgot you're a Christian. Let me dumb this down for you with an example to show why what you said was stupid. And because I know you have the memory of a goldfish, I'll quote what you said again: "A good reason to believe in God is not having to say you're sorry"
Example:
*Person A is in a diner, carrying a steak knife when he trips and accidentally stabs Person B in the chest.*
Person B: "Holy crap! You stabbed me!"
Person A: "Well, I'm a Christian, so I don't have to apologize. But if you're not a Christian, I can tell you about Jesus so you don't go to Hell after you're done bleeding to death."
I appreciate effort to reply to me with an actual example.. Although the namecalling and rudeness leave lots to be desire.
But aren't we in the post-PC era?
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 29, 2017, 05:36:02 PM
But aren't we in the post-PC era?
Not all is rich as you! All I know here in closeby proximity use pc still.
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 29, 2017, 05:45:18 PM
Not all is rich as you! All I know here in closeby proximity use pc still.
I believe he meant "politically correct." I'm not sure what would succeed computers.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2017, 05:49:19 PM
I believe he meant "politically correct." I'm not sure what would succeed computers.
Great responsibility to have mb pro here in and around me.
My country has lots of crimes and bad people to take it with no regrets!
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 29, 2017, 05:45:18 PM
Not all is rich as you! All I know here in closeby proximity use pc still.
Rich as Me? I'm homeless, jobless and penniless. So virtually everyone is richer than me.
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 29, 2017, 05:54:07 PM
@FOR PERSONAL RECORD@
This pretty much confirms to me that you are a troll.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2017, 05:55:52 PM
This pretty much confirms to me that you are a troll.
I do not want to fall in a trap on this forum. So I know it is best to keep record for going through post history.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 29, 2017, 05:05:42 PM
But isn't the definition of "theist" one who worships a theistic type of God? It seems to me you'd be more of a deist, wouldn't you?
Careful with categorizing, especially with people. I fit no hole, and no hole fits me. Most atheists don't have a firm grasp of worship, and neither do most theists. For some it is being a well beaten cur. I don't take to beatings, not by anyone, including G-d. So as it is usually meant ... I don't worship. My actions are prayer, even when I am not praying. Which is to say I am communing. Usually indirectly, thru people ... not often thru G-d directly. You regulars are my fellow congregants ;-)) I am using atheists to channel G-d to me, and I to G-d.
Quote from: Baruch on January 29, 2017, 06:35:35 PM
Careful with categorizing, especially with people. I fit no hole, and no hole fits me. Most atheists don't have a firm grasp of worship, and neither do most theists. For some it is being a well beaten cur. I don't take to beatings, not by anyone, including G-d. So as it is usually meant ... I don't worship. My actions are prayer, even when I am not praying. Which is to say I am communing. Usually indirectly, thru people ... not often thru G-d directly. You regulars are my fellow congregants ;-)) I am using atheists to channel G-d to me, and I to G-d.
I misspoke when I used the word "worship" - I should've used the word "believe."
Well I have specified before, that I don't believe. There is a psychology, called affirmations, that can be used secularly or religiously. A spectacular example of religious use is the Arabic conquest of the Middle East. But these are also used in Japanese corporations. So that isn't me. I see G-d all the time, hear G-d all the time, act on G-d's will all the time (not necessarily well in any of those cases). But G-d doesn't mean for me what it means for most of you. My POV is radically different, even though we could stand together, and look at the same things ... but I don't perceive the way you do, the way most people do, including most religious people who cling to their poor imitation of a religion.
There is a Zen saying ... before I went in the monastery, a mountain was a mountain. When I had made progress at the monastery, a mountain was no longer a mountain. After my satori ... a mountain was once again a mountain, but it wasn't the same mountain. So how to explain an experience that one hasn't had? This is why Zen can't be taught, it has to be experienced, and you make progress or you don't ... and only someone who has made more progress than you, can tell how much progress you have made. This is why small enlightenment, a kensho, can be falsely interpreted as satori ... because the student thinks they have completed the course, when in fact they have just begun it.
Remember always, I have studied all religions, both East and West ... and that helped me a lot. If one has been a part of just one Abrahamic religion, there is no way to compare outside the bubble. If one has never been religious, then it is hard to relate to someone who has. I have studied Zen since HS ... and have had kensho from time to time (an aha! moment). I had what I think was Satori, 5 years ago. With Zen, the development of the spirit, is to get yourself out of your own way. And for someone like Galileo or Newton ... good religion and good science were not at odds. I am pretty much out of my own way. But that is my job to do, no one else ... so there is no point to evangelism for me. Each person is on their own path, and I honor that.
There's also the outsider test of faith:
The Outsider Test of Faith (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thethinkingatheist/2016/06/21/john-w-loftus-the-outsider-test-for-faith)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr6xeLjuDmI
I don't compare apples with oranges, I compare a green apple with a red apple. Good historians treat evidence that way too, as do scientists. So I might compare Rome to Carthage, but not Carthage to Thailand.
Now if the point is simply to debunk, one can rely on canned science, like an evangelist relies on canned religion. But yes, there is an echo chamber, particularly if one's culture is closely tied to one's religion. This is not true in the US, except among Amish etc. It is very common in Third World countries.
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 29, 2017, 05:01:58 PM
Am I an asshole? You give yourself an excuse to be an asshole. God gave you free will!
I don't know---are you????
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 29, 2017, 05:34:25 PM
I appreciate effort to reply to me with an actual example.. Although the namecalling and rudeness leave lots to be desire.
As does your sorry excuse for 'thinking'.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 29, 2017, 09:43:45 PM
As does your sorry excuse for 'thinking'.
I will not say sorry about my thoughts.
I have no control over first impuls to my head, can only control to certain degrees how it is formulated.
This is difficult because of native language in contrary to English.
So I say sorry for that.
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 30, 2017, 11:45:15 AM
I will not say sorry about my thoughts.
I have no control over first impuls to my head, can only control to certain degrees how it is formulated.
This is difficult because of native language in contrary to English.
So I say sorry for that.
You need to ease yourself into this section ... do more in the intro section where you started. Keep to the anonymous personal, rather than the rhetorical. This is fight club, and you didn't bring any boxing gloves.
Quote from: Baruch on January 30, 2017, 12:23:20 PM
You need to ease yourself into this section ... do more in the intro section where you started. Keep to the anonymous personal, rather than the rhetorical. This is fight club, and you didn't bring any boxing gloves.
If boxing glove consist of memes and insults, I rather not fight at all.
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 30, 2017, 11:45:15 AM
I will not say sorry about my thoughts.
I have no control over first impuls to my head, can only control to certain degrees how it is formulated.
This is difficult because of native language in contrary to English.
So I say sorry for that.
You say you want to have discussions about your ideas. Yet your first couple of posts could be seen as attacks and not attempts at discussion. You came here--so you have a responsibility to tell us who you are and what it is you want to do on this site. I don't mind discussing my thoughts about god or your thoughts about god if you are here to do so then don't be so judgmental or combative.
So, OldFaithful, what would you like to discuss?
You can learn a lot from handles... Seriously, you can learn a lot by just observing.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 07:55:06 AM
You can learn a lot from handles... Seriously, you can learn a lot by just observing.
So true.
It is difficult for me to imagine something that doesn't apparently exist. But wouldn't creating immediate perfection be a part? I mean, why mess around with playing games with the toys? Would a deity do what deities do according to religions?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:11:37 AM
It is difficult for me to imagine something that doesn't apparently exist. But wouldn't creating immediate perfection be a part? I mean, why mess around with playing games with the toys? Would a deity do what deities do according to religions?
That's the thing. What determines what a god's desires are? For humans, we have brains with electrical signals and the release of neurotransmitters, and these together form a person's personality, preferences, and moral compass. It's even been proven that we make our decisions several seconds before we're aware that we've made them. New experiences cause new connections to form, which further develop our personalities. So then, our personalities don't come out of nowhere. For example, a man will want sex because of testosterone activity in the brain increasing the sex drive, and that came into being because it increased a man's chances of procreating.
But do gods have that? Do they have electrochemical communications in brains that form their personalities and determine their decisions? What's the difference between a perfectly good god and a perfectly evil one, or even a completely chaotic (unpredictable) god? Why should a god have any interest in us, our universe, or anything?
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 31, 2017, 09:38:39 AM
That's the thing. What determines what a god's desires are? For humans, we have brains with electrical signals and the release of neurotransmitters, and these together form a person's personality, preferences, and moral compass. It's even been proven that we make our decisions several seconds before we're aware that we've made them. New experiences cause new connections to form, which further develop our personalities. So then, our personalities don't come out of nowhere. For example, a man will want sex because of testosterone activity in the brain increasing the sex drive, and that came into being because it increased a man's chances of procreating.
But do gods have that? Do they have electrochemical communications in brains that form their personalities and determine their decisions? What's the difference between a perfectly good god and a perfectly evil one, or even a completely chaotic (unpredictable) god? Why should a god have any interest in us, our universe, or anything?
Deity eq
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 31, 2017, 09:38:39 AM
That's the thing. What determines what a god's desires are? For humans, we have brains with electrical signals and the release of neurotransmitters, and these together form a person's personality, preferences, and moral compass. It's even been proven that we make our decisions several seconds before we're aware that we've made them. New experiences cause new connections to form, which further develop our personalities. So then, our personalities don't come out of nowhere. For example, a man will want sex because of testosterone activity in the brain increasing the sex drive, and that came into being because it increased a man's chances of procreating.
But do gods have that? Do they have electrochemical communications in brains that form their personalities and determine their decisions? What's the difference between a perfectly good god and a perfectly evil one, or even a completely chaotic (unpredictable) god? Why should a god have any interest in us, our universe, or anything?
Deity = Borg Perfection?
Quote from: Baruch on January 30, 2017, 12:23:20 PM
This is fight club, and you didn't bring any boxing gloves.
Hey, don't talk about fight club - that's the first rule!
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 07:55:06 AM
You can learn a lot from handles... Seriously, you can learn a lot by just observing.
Confucius say ... eyes and ears open, mouth shut
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:11:37 AM
It is difficult for me to imagine something that doesn't apparently exist. But wouldn't creating immediate perfection be a part? I mean, why mess around with playing games with the toys? Would a deity do what deities do according to religions?
Excellent question. According to one school of Hinduism, all reality is Brahma having wet dreams.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 03:37:36 PM
Deity = Borg Perfection?
Deity = Commander Data ... he made quick work of the Borg queen. Failure to survive isn't perfection.
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 07:01:00 PM
Deity = Commander Data ... he made quick work of the Borg queen. Failure to survive isn't perfection.
Actually, a really good question would not have an obvious answer...
The best reason to believe in God is that you can if you want and you'll want even more if you can't.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 06:45:28 AM
The best reason to believe in God is that you can if you want and you'll want even more if you can't.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170210/c035a8743b3c03e2cd785f21d57b694c.jpg)
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 06:45:28 AM
The best reason to believe in God is that you can if you want and you'll want even more if you can't.
Another theist of the intelligent sort............not. God is a fiction, godis.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 06:45:28 AM
The best reason to believe in God is that you can if you want and you'll want even more if you can't.
It sounds to me that you are under peer pressure.
Ask any college philosophy professor and they will tell you there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that includes reasoning about the Problem of Evil. That's the dilemma. However, I asked my philosophy of religion teacher this: If there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of God, then is the limitation of us to be able to do so proof that God must be directing it to be that way? In other words, you're never as smart as you think you are.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 11:53:05 AM
Ask any college philosophy professor and they will tell you there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that includes reasoning about the Problem of Evil. That's the dilemma. However, I asked my philosophy of religion teacher this: If there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of God, then is the limitation of us to be able to do so proof that God must be directing it to be that way? In other words, you're never as smart as you think you are.
So the lack of evidence of God is evidence that God is hiding himself? What grade did you make in this philosophy class? It sounds like you didn't learn much.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 06:45:28 AM
The best reason to believe in God is that you can if you want and you'll want even more if you can't.
Social conformity happens on many levels, including religion. However resistance to conformity comes from cussedness ;-)
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 11:53:05 AM
Ask any college philosophy professor and they will tell you there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that includes reasoning about the Problem of Evil. That's the dilemma. However, I asked my philosophy of religion teacher this: If there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of God, then is the limitation of us to be able to do so proof that God must be directing it to be that way? In other words, you're never as smart as you think you are.
That was clever repartee on your part, but not a philosophy. Often atheists, not theists, are intensely interesting in proof of things. And there is no good proof for or against G-d ... but it is a decent "Okham's Razon" that there is no G-d. Some people here never were religious, not even as children. Others were religious but fell out of it as they matured. Some of us are still religious. Only two things link all these test cases ... sociology and psychology. Proof doesn't pertain to those disciplines, they are descriptive.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 11:53:05 AM
Ask any college philosophy professor and they will tell you there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that includes reasoning about the Problem of Evil. That's the dilemma. However, I asked my philosophy of religion teacher this: If there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of God, then is the limitation of us to be able to do so proof that God must be directing it to be that way? In other words, you're never as smart as you think you are.
In your case I don't know how you can think you were ever smart. You sound pretty gullible to me.
Using your analogy, then it can never be proven that Bugs Bunny is real or not. Or the Tooth Fairy--is she not real? How does one prove it?????
I would suggest that since there is not one shred of evidence that god exists that that fact alone would prove god does not exist.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 06:45:28 AM
The best reason to believe in God is that you can if you want and you'll want even more if you can't.
No one here will tell you that you can't believe in God, or anything else you'd like to believe in. We just don't see any reason for ourselves to believe in it just because you do. We don't choose not to believe, we simple can not believe - just as you can't believe in Vishnu, or Thor, or the Great JuJu on the mountain.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 10, 2017, 12:11:02 PM
So the lack of evidence of God is evidence that God is hiding himself? What grade did you make in this philosophy class? It sounds like you didn't learn much.
Also didn't tell us what the professor's answer was to the question...I wonder why...
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 11:53:05 AM
Ask any college philosophy professor and they will tell you there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that includes reasoning about the Problem of Evil. That's the dilemma. However, I asked my philosophy of religion teacher this: If there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of God, then is the limitation of us to be able to do so proof that God must be directing it to be that way? In other words, you're never as smart as you think you are.
We are not that smart, but why would a god that wants to be loved and worshiped hide from people? Does this make any sense? Is he trying to weed out the autistic or those with Asperger's, or is he not interested in people who have brains that think logically? "Send those people to an eternal fire. They're not gullible enough for me."
This is where Christian apologetics comes in. Since a god cannot be understood, we make stuff up to claim understanding of what we can't understand. Round and round we go, building a house of cards built on explaining god's desires, needs, and personality characteristics, when we've already stated that he is too far above us to understand. We pretend to understand him even though we say he's too complicated to understand.
Whether a god exists or not, there are mountains of nonsense made up by man to account for the absurdities we feel we have to apologize for. An odd thing to build a life on.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 11:53:05 AM
In other words, you're never as smart as you think you are.
But I bet
you're as smart as you think you are...
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 10, 2017, 12:11:02 PM
So the lack of evidence of God is evidence that God is hiding himself? What grade did you make in this philosophy class? It sounds like you didn't learn much.
We lack evidence of the Men In Black. This proves that the M.I.B. is altering our memories and making us forget all encounters with them.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 10, 2017, 06:37:27 PM
We lack evidence of the Men In Black. This proves that the M.I.B. is altering our memories and making us forget all encounters with them.
M.I.B = Father Guido Sarducci?
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 11:53:05 AM
Ask any college philosophy professor and they will tell you there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that includes reasoning about the Problem of Evil. That's the dilemma. However, I asked my philosophy of religion teacher this: If there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of God, then is the limitation of us to be able to do so proof that God must be directing it to be that way? In other words, you're never as smart as you think you are.
The real problem with deities is that they are unnecessary middle-men. No added value. Like the car sales guy...
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2017, 06:58:26 PM
M.I.B = Father Guido Sarducci?
Yeah, this guy, for those who don't know of him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2x3zFiqiBQ
I had two dolls as a toddler ... Thumper the rabbit, and Caspar the ghost. My mother still has them. Caspar had this awesome AI ... you pulled the ring on the string, and he said random things from his list of things to say. That is how your autonomous trucks, cars, boats and planes are going to work out too.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 04:33:08 PM
I had two dolls as a toddler ... Thumper the rabbit, and Caspar the ghost. My mother still has them. Caspar had this awesome AI ... you pulled the ring on the string, and he said random things from his list of things to say. That is how your autonomous trucks, cars, boats and planes are going to work out too.
Are you implying that we live in one branch of a multiverse created by random statements by god?
Christian apologetics: the art of apologizing for Christianity and/or bending the truth to verify the Christian narrative
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 10, 2017, 12:11:02 PM
So the lack of evidence of God is evidence that God is hiding himself?
well... ya!!! thats been the storyline for a long time. Where's yur faith?
Universally accepted evidence of stated deity's existence is the only reason to believe in that god's existence.
Quote from: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 05:54:46 PM
Are you implying that we live in one branch of a multiverse created by random statements by god?
Christian apologetics: the art of apologizing for Christianity and/or bending the truth to verify the Christian narrative
well... ya!!! thats been the storyline for a long time. Where's yur faith?
No, each person is a branch of the multiverse, but not independent, dependent. "Where two or more are gathered in my name ..." You say ... I am a human. But you don't know what a human is ... so one is always begging the question.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 05:55:45 PM
Universally accepted evidence of stated deity's existence is the only reason to believe in that god's existence.
Except the basis of what you call evidence, is corrupted by your biology and upbringing and socialization.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 06:47:43 PM
Except the basis of what you call evidence, is corrupted by your biology and upbringing and socialization.
Clarify.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 06:48:43 PM
Clarify.
Every thought, every word spoken or written, every interpretation by you of the words of others, or as evidence of the thoughts of others ... is based on your personal history. You are not different from your personal history. There is only historical bias, there is no objectivity ... except what is artificially created by specialists, like mathematicians ... and even they disagree at times. What is a dictionary? A giant self referencing web of interdependent definitions. And circular arguments, are fallacious. Therefore all arguments using language, are fallacious. So why do we argue? Not for epistemology ... for psychology.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 06:54:41 PM
Every thought, every word spoken or written, every interpretation by you of the words of others, or as evidence of the thoughts of others ... is based on your personal history. You are not different from your personal history. There is only historical bias, there is no objectivity ... except what is artificially created by specialists, like mathematicians ... and even they disagree at times. What is a dictionary? A giant self referencing web of interdependent definitions. And circular arguments, are fallacious. Therefore all arguments using language, are fallacious. So why do we argue? Not for epistemology ... for psychology.
Do you include yourself in that historical bias, recognizing the faults in your own arguments against others?
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 06:57:35 PM
Do you include yourself in that historical bias, recognizing the faults in your own arguments against others?
In Mahayana Buddhism .. people suffer because of delusion. And the Buddha must use a counter-delusion (counter spell, as in magic) to undo it. Of course both the spell and counterspell have no effect on anyone who doesn't share the same delusion. This is called "upaya". It is the Buddhist way of psychotherapy. How are you enjoying your group encounter so far?
The truth is .. falsehood and truth aren't opposites. Binars (a species from one episode of Star Trek Next Generation, of which Ensign Crusher was particularly fond) would not be able to grok it. Falsehood is acting without integrity, truth is acting with integrity ... hence faith being related to justifiable trust. It isn't propositional or even predicate. We actually can't determine if something is so or not .. we can only determine relative consistency, in a shared community (see scientists and mathematicians). What appears to the common man, as a large body of relative consistency ... is taken to be factual. But we don't really know for sure, just as we don't know for sure who shot Lincoln. We have a shared narrative that Booth did it. But did you know that Booth's brother saved Lincoln's son (the one who made it to adulthood), from a fatal accident at a train platform, earlier? It is much easier to determine mathematical consistency, a bit harder to do it in physical science ... nearly impossible in the social sciences like history.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:06:27 PM
We actually can't determine if something is so or not
Actually, we can.
Buddhism has its good points, but overall it is quite misleading. It is merely another means of indoctrination that leads to inner comfort and absolute denial of the problems of the world.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:11:10 PM
Actually, we can.
Buddhism has its good points, but overall it is quite misleading. It is merely another means of indoctrination that leads to inner comfort and absolute denial of the problems of the world.
You can't pull the pebble from my han'. But please keep trying until you can.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:42:34 PM
You can't pull the pebble from my hand. But please keep trying until you can.
Therefore you admit defeat?
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:43:49 PM
Therefore you admit defeat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2yIkDVs0cA
There is no defeat, or victory, where there is no contest.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:48:00 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2yIkDVs0cA
There is no defeat, or victory, where there is no contest.
All I need to be wise is to understand that I always have more to learn; that I will never know everything.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:06:27 PM
we don't know for sure who shot Lincoln
conspiracy theory says Lincoln made a move to protect the people from the Banksters. When they found out what he was doing, they decided to get rid of him.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:49:32 PM
All I need to be wise is to understand that I always have more to learn; that I will never know everything.
Yes, but worse yet, we can't even know anything (that requires omniscience). We can only try to understand, and can only do that with another human being, that we share something with (like we have both been fishing). Epistemology is megalomania.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:52:03 PM
Yes, but worse yet, we can't even know anything (that requires omniscience). We can only try to understand, and can only do that with another human being, that we share something with (like we have both been fishing). Epistemology is megalomania.
Are you inferring that your personal definition of omniscience, "all knowing", is simply knowing in its rawest form?
Quote from: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 07:50:54 PM
conspiracy theory says Lincoln made a move to protect the people from the Banksters. When they found out what he was doing, they decided to get rid of him.
Not the only theory. Another says that Sec Stanton (Sec of War) was part of an earlier conspiracy to kidnap Lincoln, if the conference between Lincoln and the Southern representatives (hosted by Grant) had gone badly. And that the Booth conspirators were part of that earlier conspiracy. The most interesting thing about it, was the attack on Sec of State, Seward. What did they hope to gain by that? Or was that due to jealousy between cabinet members??
Lincoln did piss off the bankers, and they made a mighty profit, even though Lincoln printed Greenbacks to escape their interest rates. The Duponts made the gunpowder for the Union ... and were later involved in the plot against FDR in 1933. The Duponts are French royalist exiles.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:55:37 PM
Are you inferring that your personal definition of omniscience, "all knowing", is simply knowing in its rawest form?
All Knowing ... otherwise uncertainty remains. There is no such thing as raw data, even involuntarily, your retinas and optic nerves interprets your eyesight (a gestalt), before it gets to be processed by your cognitive functions. The closest thing we ever got to, to uninterpreted experience, was your first day as an infant after birth. From there on, we are in the Matrix (which word roots to "mother").
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:59:09 PM
All Knowing ... otherwise uncertainty remains. There is no such thing as raw data, even involuntarily, your retinas and optic nerves interprets your eyesight (a gestalt), before it gets to be processed by your cognitive functions. The closest thing we ever got to, to uninterpreted experience, was your first day as an infant after birth. From there on, we are in the Matrix (which word roots to "mother").
*Hands you a tinfoil hat*
Mike "lack of evidence of god should constitute proof that god does not exist"
there is no proof of god => god does not exist - incomplete argument
I wish it was that easy Mike, but it's not. Before you draw that line you have to prove that no one; including god; destroyed evidence. You also have to prove that there is no evidence. There may or may not be evidence on the other side of the universe. Unfortunately according to what NASA says to the public, it is beyond our ability to go to the otherside of the universe. We can not conclusively say that there is no evidence until we have the ability to search every part of the universe.
I would still like to know why the Christian god who has a love/hate relationship with humans is so afraid to show his face...
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 08:01:28 PM
*Hands you a tinfoil hat*
No, the visual cortex is what it is ... study that ... as a model of all sensation and brain function (it is our most powerful sense). Discursive notions ... are absolutely inferior to a knowledge of even how part of the brain works. You can't know if you have arrived at your destination, if you have no map.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:04:18 PM
No, the visual cortex is what it is ... study that ... as a model of all sensation and brain function (it is our most powerful sense). Discursive notions ... are absolutely inferior to a knowledge of even how part of the brain works. You can't know if you have arrived at your destination, if you have no map.
I am quite aware of how the eye works. However, you are confusing our understanding of the eye with obtuse sensationalism.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 08:07:41 PM
I am quite aware of how the eye works. However, you are confusing our understanding of the eye with obtuse sensationalism.
I can touch the corner of a triangle, whose angle is greater than 90 degrees? Or am I being obtuse ;-)
Quote from: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 08:01:37 PM
Mike "lack of evidence of god should constitute proof that god does not exist"
There is no proof of god => god does not exist - incomplete argument
I wish it was that easy Mike, but it's not. Before you draw that line you have to prove that no one ; including god; destroyed evidence. You also have to prove that there is no evidence. There may or may not be evidence on the other side of the universe. Unfortunately according to what NASA says to the public, it is beyond our ability to go to the otherside of the universe. We can not conclusively say that there is no evidence until we have the ability to search every part of the universe.
I would still like to know why the Christian god who has a love/hate relationship with humans is so afraid to show his face...
It's all the iron. He's scared to death of that stuff.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2017, 08:11:55 PM
It's all the iron. He's scared to death of that stuff.
Holy Kryptonite, Blackleaf - Jimmy Olson
Quote from: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 08:01:37 PM
Mike "lack of evidence of god should constitute proof that god does not exist"
there is no proof of god => god does not exist - incomplete argument
I wish it was that easy Mike, but it's not. Before you draw that line you have to prove that no one; including god; destroyed evidence. You also have to prove that there is no evidence. There may or may not be evidence on the other side of the universe. Unfortunately according to what NASA says to the public, it is beyond our ability to go to the otherside of the universe. We can not conclusively say that there is no evidence until we have the ability to search every part of the universe.
I would still like to know why the Christian god who has a love/hate relationship with humans is so afraid to show his face...
So, then, we cannot prove the Tooth Fairy does not exist? Nor Fairies?
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 05:55:45 PM
Universally accepted evidence of stated deity's existence is the only reason to believe in that god's existence.
And if the evidence is not accepted universally?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 04:49:17 AM
And if the evidence is not accepted universally?
So Trump isn't the anti-Christ as long as at least one person disagrees?
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 07:06:03 AM
So Trump isn't the anti-Christ as long as at least one person disagrees?
Trump cannot be the anti-christ, since christ is a fiction. That would be like saying he was the anti--Tooth Fairy. But to say he is evil is accurate.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 12, 2017, 09:07:28 PM
So, then, we cannot prove the Tooth Fairy does not exist? Nor Fairies?
I dont know. Maybe one day we will find out that the Bible was written by fairies, and the giants it talks about are us.
Quote from: fencerider on February 13, 2017, 11:40:59 PM
I dont know. Maybe one day we will find out that the Bible was written by fairies, and the giants it talks about are us.
That's my point--some day we 'may' find out. But until that time, for me, the total and complete lack of evidence just screams fiction--a Creator God who leaves no traces whatsoever, is and must be, a fiction. When/if the day comes when proof suddenly appears, I will then change my way of thinking and embrace this God for all I'm worth. But until that day (and even saying that is telling the theist we have doubt in our thoughts--and I don't. And I don't doubt that the Tooth Fairy is not real as well.) I will keep thinking god is simply a fiction and a scam.
Quote from: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 08:01:37 PM
Mike "lack of evidence of god should constitute proof that god does not exist"
there is no proof of god => god does not exist - incomplete argument
I wish it was that easy Mike, but it's not. Before you draw that line you have to prove that no one; including god; destroyed evidence. You also have to prove that there is no evidence. There may or may not be evidence on the other side of the universe. Unfortunately according to what NASA says to the public, it is beyond our ability to go to the otherside of the universe. We can not conclusively say that there is no evidence until we have the ability to search every part of the universe.
I would still like to know why the Christian god who has a love/hate relationship with humans is so afraid to show his face...
But there
is logical evidence against logically inconsistent [G]ods. If a God with mutually exclusive characteristics is posited, then logic denies its existence.
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 07:06:03 AM
So Trump isn't the anti-Christ as long as at least one person disagrees?
The anti-christ has to be liked by everyone; he will be someone by whom even the theists are fooled.
How do they know the anti christ isnt a she?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 07:29:32 PM
How do they know the anti christ isnt a she?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Considering that the Judeo-Christian religions are patriarchal in nature, they would immediately distrust any woman in charge. Thus, discounting her as being the anti-christ since the anti-christ would gain the trust of everyone.
I think the ancient Roman Catholic Church may have been the anti-Christ, given that their first pope was the only one of the disciples who denied Jesus three times. I bet they even have a ritual Christ-denial before becoming pope.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 06:43:45 PM
But there is logical evidence against logically inconsistent [G]ods. If a God with mutually exclusive characteristics is posited, then logic denies its existence.
Humans are inconsistent ... so we must not exist. Only Vulcans exist. Putting logic over faith, is what got Abelard and Heloise into trouble, that and concupiscence.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 07:32:24 PM
Considering that the Judeo-Christian religions are patriarchal in nature, they would immediately distrust any woman in charge. Thus, discounting her as being the anti-christ since the anti-christ would gain the trust of everyone.
There already was a legendary female Pope, so the anti-Christ has already come and gone over 1000 years ago. Pope Joan. But that defies the "popularity" meme.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 07:34:08 PM
I think the ancient Roman Catholic Church may have been the anti-Christ, given that their first pope was the only one of the disciples who denied Jesus three times. I bet they even have a ritual Christ-denial before becoming pope.
Not only that, but in tradition they still show a Pope Candidate chair, that has a hole in the bottom, so a deacon can check the candidate for female parts (see Pope Joan).
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 09:06:25 AM
some day we 'may' find out. But until that time, for me, the total and complete lack of evidence just screams fiction--a Creator God who leaves no traces whatsoever, is and must be, a fiction. When/if the day comes when proof suddenly appears, I will then change my way of thinking and embrace this God for all I'm worth.
I was agreein with you until that last part. If a real god shows up just happens to be the Christian god, well, we got some issues to work out before any embracing is going on. Course if its another god that shows up; still gonna have to do a little bit of talkin to get my approval.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 06:43:45 PM
But there is logical evidence against logically inconsistent [G]ods. If a God with mutually exclusive characteristics is posited, then logic denies its existence.
Actually, I suspect there is no "then" involved. Almost any logic denies the existence of a deity.
Quote from: fencerider on February 15, 2017, 02:07:34 AM
I was agreein with you until that last part. If a real god shows up just happens to be the Christian god, well, we got some issues to work out before any embracing is going on. Course if its another god that shows up; still gonna have to do a little bit of talkin to get my approval.
Well, I have to agree on that point--was being a little factious, tho. But if any god showed up I would like a little explaining going on. :)
For a while after losing my faith, I wanted to find out that God was real. Now that I realize how evil the Christian god would be if he were real, I don't think I want that any more. The Christian god can screw himself. Literally. I think he's the only god who can do a three-way with himself.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:30:25 AM
Actually, I suspect there is no "then" involved. Almost any logic denies the existence of a deity.
Deities are unreasonable (even if they exist). They are not un-logical ... hence theology. Theology makes the unreasonable, logical.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 15, 2017, 09:39:24 AM
Well, I have to agree on that point--was being a little factious, tho. But if any god showed up I would like a little explaining going on. :)
Yeah, just like Lucy,
any god's got lots of 'splaining to do...
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder963/57091963.jpg)
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 15, 2017, 10:04:37 AM
I think he's the only god who can do a three-way with himself.
Wow, tickets could be sold! It'd be the biggest blockbuster in the history of the universe!
(http://www.academiadecontos.com/uploads/2006959499academia%20Menage%20a%20trois.png)
and then there is Hydra with many heads. and Vishnu with many hands. freekin godly orgy
Quote from: fencerider on February 15, 2017, 11:42:48 PM
and then there is Hydra with many heads. and Vishnu with many hands. freekin godly orgy
Yeah, every deity I have ever read about was insane, cruel, or worse.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 02:24:50 AM
Yeah, every deity I have ever read about was insane, cruel, or worse.
A reflection of Life, of Kali Ma herself. Go back to Santa Claus.
Quote from: fencerider on February 15, 2017, 11:42:48 PM
and then there is Hydra with many heads. and Vishnu with many hands. freekin godly orgy
And thinking of that more, most deities represented our fears more than our hopes. How many older deities were "good" by our standards?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 06:26:33 AM
And thinking of that more, most deities represented our fears more than our hopes. How many older deities were "good" by our standards?
Our standards? You mean genocide in Syria? We are like Ravana, the demon king killed by King Rama.
Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 12:46:23 PM
Our standards? You mean genocide in Syria? We are like Ravana, the demon king killed by King Rama.
The genocide in Syria is local, theistic, and ancient.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 02:50:23 AM
The genocide in Syria is local, theistic, and ancient.
And very much today. Americans want to exterminate each other too, just like Syrians. If we do, the Syrians will be dancing dervishes.
nothing wrong with holding a god to a higher standard than a mortal man
Quote from: fencerider on February 19, 2017, 03:48:36 PM
nothing wrong with holding a god to a higher standard than a mortal man
But then you have created a straw man, and the Wicked Witch of the West will burn you!
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 09:02:31 PM
But then you have created a straw man, and the Wicked Witch of the West will burn you!
I suppose there is nothing to do but just ignore you...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 20, 2017, 12:16:25 AM
I suppose there is nothing to do but just ignore you...
Just now figured that out huh?
Sorry Baruch! If we always took you seriously there would be no end to it!
Quote from: doorknob on February 20, 2017, 12:37:08 AM
Just now figured that out huh?
Sorry Baruch! If we always took you seriously there would be no end to it!
Yeah, my desire to communicate kept overcoming my desire to ignore trolls.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 20, 2017, 12:43:53 AM
Yeah, my desire to communicate kept overcoming my desire to ignore trolls.
Trolls? Look in the mirror ... you do 11 posts on average per day.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 09:02:31 PM
the Wicked Witch of the West will burn you
That makes burning a witch at the stake a mere act of revenge.
Isn't a troll a mountain monster that is so scary that even the dwarves hide from them?
Well the existence of witches or trolls is not evidence for the existence of god. Guess we got off the topic
Quote from: fencerider on February 21, 2017, 04:22:02 AM
That makes burning a witch at the stake a mere act of revenge.
Isn't a troll a mountain monster that is so scary that even the dwarves hide from them?
Well the existence of witches or trolls is not evidence for the existence of god. Guess we got off the topic
Only if witches and trolls are natural, not supernatural. Last time I looked, they are fictional.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 09:02:31 PM
But then you have created a straw man, and the Wicked Witch of the West will burn you!
All you need is a super-soaker full of water to douse her...
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 21, 2017, 07:03:16 PM
All you need is a super-soaker full of water to douse her...
Yeah, all the lion ever had to do was pee on the witch...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 03:40:43 AM
Yeah, all the lion ever had to do was pee on the witch...
Wrong movie. Ever get lost in your wardrobe? ;-)
Movie, wardrobe?
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 06:00:51 AM
Wrong movie. Ever get lost in your wardrobe? ;-)
Well in Epic Movie He does do a duch oven. So he could have peed on the witch and they just didn't show it.
Quote from: doorknob on February 23, 2017, 11:31:56 AM
Well in Epic Movie He does do a duch oven. So he could have peed on the witch and they just didn't show it.
There are probably some things I don't want to know the details of! LOL!
hey thanks for killing my thread!
"A good reason to believe in god is...
to not go to hell!"
LMAO
yeah thanks mom! I log that one away!
Quote from: doorknob on March 23, 2017, 06:44:30 AM
hey thanks for killing my thread!
"A good reason to believe in god is...
to not go to hell!"
LMAO
yeah thanks mom! I log that one away!
You know, one thing I realized recently was the Christian God's similarity to Nebekenezer. At least the fictional version of him from the Bible. Both give the same ultimatum: Worship me or burn. The only differences are that God is supposed to be the good guy, while Nebekenezer is supposed to be the bad guy, and God burns you forever while Nebekenezer's only burns you until you die (which is pretty quickly, considering the people keeping the fire burning couldn't even get close to it). I guess God gets a pass because...he's god.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 23, 2017, 12:07:02 PM
You know, one thing I realized recently was the Christian God's similarity to Nebekenezer. At least the fictional version of him from the Bible. Both give the same ultimatum: Worship me or burn. The only differences are that God is supposed to be the good guy, while Nebekenezer is supposed to be the bad guy, and God burns you forever while Nebekenezer's only burns you until you die (which is pretty quickly, considering the people keeping the fire burning couldn't even get close to it). I guess God gets a pass because...he's god.
Good point ;-) Book of Job makes the same claim.
Quote from: doorknob on March 23, 2017, 06:44:30 AM
hey thanks for killing my thread!
"A good reason to believe in god is...
to not go to hell!"
LMAO
yeah thanks mom! I log that one away!
If someone is actually a sociopathic monstor that just wants to rape and kill and 'sin' and make others suffer all for personal gain, but doesn't because he believes he'll get it back infinite-fold. Then yeah, I hope that person never loses religion.
Other than that, I couldn't really tell.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 23, 2017, 01:38:35 PM
If someone is actually a sociopathic monstor that just wants to rape and kill and 'sin' and make others suffer all for personal gain, but doesn't because he believes he'll get it back infinite-fold. Then yeah, I hope that person never loses religion.
Other than that, I couldn't really tell.
All of us are crazy and equal, but some are crazier and more equal than others.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 23, 2017, 01:38:35 PM
If someone is actually a sociopathic monstor that just wants to rape and kill and 'sin' and make others suffer all for personal gain, but doesn't because he believes he'll get it back infinite-fold. Then yeah, I hope that person never loses religion.
Other than that, I couldn't really tell.
But what if they realize that they can sin all they want and just repent afterwards?
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 23, 2017, 08:16:06 PM
But what if they realize that they can sin all they want and just repent afterwards?
Then even that doesn't hold up.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 24, 2017, 01:42:46 AM
Then even that doesn't hold up.
According to religion it does.
Quote from: Sorginak on March 24, 2017, 01:50:13 AM
According to religion it does.
Yeah, repent in your last moments and you are saved. And I mean that dying repentance can be real and serious. So Stalin repents and his sins are forgiven? Give me a break.
Well, I suppose it is better than paid indulgences...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 03:15:38 AM
Yeah, repent in your last moments and you are saved. And I mean that dying repentance can be real and serious. So Stalin repents and his sins are forgiven? Give me a break.
Well, I suppose it is better than paid indulgences...
Considering how religion and its belief systems are veritable myths, I think we have nothing to worry about in regard to actual theistic criminals cheating the system. However, I also understand how theistic individuals only think in terms of their theism, actual reason escaping their little minds, so speaking in terms they understand can be considered beneficial except that those ignorant, illogical apologist arguments just seem to keep getting in the way.
Quote from: Sorginak on March 24, 2017, 03:19:41 AM
Considering how religion and its belief systems are veritable myths, I think we have nothing to worry about in regard to actual theistic criminals cheating the system. However, I also understand how theistic individuals only think in terms of their theism, actual reason escaping their little minds, so speaking in terms they understand can be considered beneficial except that those ignorant, illogical apologist arguments just seem to keep getting in the way.
Keep posting. I'm enjoying every word! "actual reasoning escaping their little minds" is the best phrase I've seen today anywhere.
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2016, 08:13:09 PM
Could you handle even one shield maiden/Valkyrie? Really!
The Valkaries are are nonsensical as unicorns.
Quote from: Sorginak on March 24, 2017, 03:19:41 AM
Considering how religion and its belief systems are veritable myths, I think we have nothing to worry about in regard to actual theistic criminals cheating the system. However, I also understand how theistic individuals only think in terms of their theism, actual reason escaping their little minds, so speaking in terms they understand can be considered beneficial except that those ignorant, illogical apologist arguments just seem to keep getting in the way.
Yeah, but the theists think so and that affects how they plan their lives. Be absolute bastards all your life and repent at the end, all is good.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 04:57:17 AM
The Valkaries are are nonsensical as unicorns.
Sorry, I am open minded, but I am not going to "do" a unicorn ;-) Valkyrie ... maybe ... if she will take the armor off.
Quote from: Sorginak on March 24, 2017, 01:50:13 AM
According to religion it does.
Last minute confession and sacrament was a big deal once. Constantine did it, so did one of his sons. Got a little splash baptism at the end ... because it was believed once baptized, you better not sin again. Being evil rulers, this put a crimp on their family business (late Roman Empire). Also the notion of time was slippery ... that what you do at one time, impacts past, present and future. On the other hand, false confession or false repentance was regarded by some religious ... as worthless, same as most of us might think. How to know if it is false? We don't .. but G-d does. Also, does their behavior actually change? This is what got the Donatists in trouble with the Church (they deplored false priests ... sound familiar?). And this is what Jean Calvin was saying in creating Calvinism ... real religious are morally pure, if they aren't then they aren't religious ... but it is OK to kill people anyway, if G-d tells you to ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 07:14:47 AM
Last minute confession and sacrament was a big deal once. Constantine did it, so did one of his sons. Got a little splash baptism at the end ... because it was believed once baptized, you better not sin again. Being evil rulers, this put a crimp on their family business (late Roman Empire). Also the notion of time was slippery ... that what you do at one time, impacts past, present and future. On the other hand, false confession or false repentance was regarded by some religious ... as worthless, same as most of us might think. How to know if it is false? We don't .. but G-d does. Also, does their behavior actually change? This is what got the Donatists in trouble with the Church (they deplored false priests ... sound familiar?). And this is what Jean Calvin was saying in creating Calvinism ... real religious are morally pure, if they aren't then they aren't religious ... but it is OK to kill people anyway, if G-d tells you to ;-(
Were the Churches right in medieval times granting indulgences? If yes, then it should be correct today. If no, then Hell is full of believers.
Religion is SO idiotic. I laugh almost every day. Well, SOME days the subject never even crosses my mind.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 25, 2017, 02:05:42 AM
Were the Churches right in medieval times granting indulgences? If yes, then it should be correct today. If no, then Hell is full of believers.
Religion is SO idiotic. I laugh almost every day. Well, SOME days the subject never even crosses my mind.
Indulgences were a form of taxation. Given the Medieval poverty, there wasn't much to put in the plate when passed. And not enough nobility were screwing their progeny, by giving their estates away to the Church for having been such bloodthirsty killers.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 25, 2017, 02:05:42 AM
Were the Churches right in medieval times granting indulgences? If yes, then it should be correct today. If no, then Hell is full of believers.
The ones I got a kick out of were the sin eater scammers. You could pay them and then heap all your sins on them. In exchange for money, they would go to Hell for you. At least that's what they claimed. Must have been a great relief for a lot of people.
Quote from: SGOS on March 25, 2017, 08:57:12 AM
The ones I got a kick out of were the sin eater scammers. You could pay them and then heap all your sins on them. In exchange for money, they would go to Hell for you. At least that's what they claimed. Must have been a great relief for a lot of people.
I think that was mostly Ireland, and mostly an old pagan custom. In Ireland, they were so poor due to the English, that being a sin-eater might be the only way to get a square meal ;-(
Quote from: Cavebear on March 25, 2017, 02:05:42 AM
Were the Churches right in medieval times granting indulgences? If yes, then it should be correct today. If no, then Hell is full of believers.
Religion is exactly like science, but don't tell Drew. As you just implied, religion even evolves. Just like science, people pull ideas out of their ass, and some of them become popular and part of the collective conscious. Other less useful adaptations are discarded by consensus. Yup, no difference between science and religion. Well religious ideas evolve more slowly, because there is so much more thinking involved. But religion is like the tortoise, it eventually wins, because science is more stupid.
Okay I'll throw my two cents in. I think more so than any other reason religion is what disgusts, repulses and sickens atheists about theism over all. I share their feelings of disgust and as a result I'm not affiliated with any religion. However, I haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I still believe by a preponderance of the evidence (whether anyone in here acknowledges its evidence is irrelevant at this point) we owe our existence to a Creator. I don't have to subscribe to any particular religious belief as a result.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 27, 2017, 11:35:39 PM
Okay I'll throw my two cents in. I think more so than any other reason religion is what disgusts, repulses and sickens atheists about theism over all. I share their feelings of disgust and as a result I'm not affiliated with any religion. However, I haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I still believe by a preponderance of the evidence (whether anyone in here acknowledges its evidence is irrelevant at this point) we owe our existence to a Creator. I don't have to subscribe to any particular religious belief as a result.
You say you are not affiliated with any religion. Yet we owe our existence to a creator...
That's inane.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 27, 2017, 11:35:39 PMI think more so than any other reason religion is what disgusts, repulses and sickens atheists about theism over all. I share their feelings of disgust and as a result I'm not affiliated with any religion.
A system of worship of god/gods tends to be heavily related with the idea that god/gods exists.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 27, 2017, 11:35:39 PM
Okay I'll throw my two cents in. I think more so than any other reason religion is what disgusts, repulses and sickens atheists about theism over all. I share their feelings of disgust and as a result I'm not affiliated with any religion. However, I haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I still believe by a preponderance of the evidence (whether anyone in here acknowledges its evidence is irrelevant at this point) we owe our existence to a Creator. I don't have to subscribe to any particular religious belief as a result.
An agnostic in regards to formal religion. Not a bad thing, i have distanced myself at times from formal religion. Though lately I am going to rejoin ... partly. I like my independence, but I can't stay in my mother's basement all my life ;-) I am more of an agnostic in regards to politics ... I really can't say which flavor of criminality I prefer.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 28, 2017, 02:30:41 AM
A system of worship of god/gods tends to be heavily related with the idea that god/gods exists.
The "I think I can, I think I can" school of philosophy (a form of Idealism) would say, belief in gods brings them into existence. They are real, just as much as R party policy positions are (given that there are R party people who write them and believe in them). In which case, Shabbat was made for man, not man for Shabbat .. where did I hear that before ...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 27, 2017, 11:35:39 PM
religion is what disgusts, repulses and sickens atheists about theism over all.
What atheists oppose is thought control, oppression, and loss of liberty that is based on someone's unsupported ideological nonsense. This occurs throughout world in the form of politics and other forms of social interaction. Religion carries these threats to inalienable rights much farther and insidiously weaves itself in ordinary politics. There are smaller sideshow aspects of religion such as sanctioned pedophilia, proselytizing, and constant glorification of nonsense and magical thinking that reach a level worthy of disgust and ridicule, but religion is just a vehicle for madmen to control and brainwash others (See: Islam and Christianity).
Theism is the basic foundation of magical thinking that religions depend on in order to flourish and spread. Without theists, religions lose much of their control and destructive power over others.
Quote from: SGOS on March 28, 2017, 09:06:26 AM
What atheists oppose is thought control, oppression, and loss of liberty that is based on someone's unsupported ideological nonsense. This occurs throughout world in the form of politics and other forms of social interaction. Religion carries these threats to inalienable rights much farther and insidiously weaves itself in ordinary politics. There are smaller sideshow aspects of religion such as sanctioned pedophilia, proselytizing, and constant glorification of nonsense and magical thinking that reach a level worthy of disgust and ridicule, but religion is just a vehicle for madmen to control and brainwash others (See: Islam and Christianity).
Theism is the basic foundation of magical thinking that religions depend on in order to flourish and spread. Without theists, religions lose much of their control and destructive power over others.
Magical thinking exists without religions. See stock and bond market. Animal instincts at work there. Also some atheists are authoritarian (see Stalin). But I suppose you only mean freethinkers who happen to be atheists. That even I can support. Oppression exists, because crime does pay, and pay well. See Clintons.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 28, 2017, 02:10:25 AM
You say you are not affiliated with any religion. Yet we owe our existence to a creator...
That's inane.
Belief in the existence of God by itself isn't religious at all. You could call it a philosophical belief or a secular belief. For me personally it does have ramifications. It provides a basis to believe humans are special, that we are born equal and we aren't just the by product of naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence. It provides a basis for the golden rule.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 02:04:46 PM
Belief in the existence of God by itself isn't religious at all. You could call it a philosophical belief or a secular belief. For me personally it does have ramifications. It provides a basis to believe humans are special, that we are born equal and we aren't just the by product of naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence. It provides a basis for the golden rule.
Interesting comment. I like where your belief has taken you. But I have basically, the same world view as you, but without any belief system. It matters not that nature produced humans as a happenstance. No 'creator' needed for me. I view humans as special and should have the right to equal opportunities--or at least fair opportunities in life. We are not born equal in any sense. But that does not mean some should have more 'fair' treatment or opportunities than others. The Golden Rule, in almost all of it's forms, is an excellent way to live; and I model it as best I can.
For me taking god or creator out of the picture reduces the number of questions I have. If I believed in god, i'd want to know who/what created god--and so on. If I believed in god, I'd want to know how this god could be so bumbling and bungling in it's creation; how it displays no moral or ethical fabric and a raft of other questions. So, for me, there is no god and I don't have to try and figure out all that stuff about it.
Quote from: SGOS on March 28, 2017, 09:06:26 AM
What atheists oppose is thought control, oppression, and loss of liberty that is based on someone's unsupported ideological nonsense. This occurs throughout world in the form of politics and other forms of social interaction. Religion carries these threats to inalienable rights much farther and insidiously weaves itself in ordinary politics. There are smaller sideshow aspects of religion such as sanctioned pedophilia, proselytizing, and constant glorification of nonsense and magical thinking that reach a level worthy of disgust and ridicule, but religion is just a vehicle for madmen to control and brainwash others (See: Islam and Christianity).
Theism is the basic foundation of magical thinking that religions depend on in order to flourish and spread. Without theists, religions lose much of their control and destructive power over others.
Quote from: SGOS on March 28, 2017, 09:06:26 AM
What atheists oppose is thought control, oppression, and loss of liberty that is based on someone's unsupported ideological nonsense. This occurs throughout world in the form of politics and other forms of social interaction. Religion carries these threats to inalienable rights much farther and insidiously weaves itself in ordinary politics.
I think you misspoke here because nothing could be a more dangerous threat to the notion of inalienable rights than atheistic belief. Speaking as an American the foundation of inalienable rights is found in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of HappinessIf we owe our existence to mindless naturalistic forces that didn't care one whit if we existed whence do any inalienable rights come from? From that belief it follows we don't have any right to live at all, we don't have any right to eat or breathe have shelter or clothes. We have no right to be free and not enslaved by anyone. Apart from that fact we can pretend we have rights and agree to it but in reality its a phantom. If rights are granted by humans...they aren't rights at all they're privileges that can be taken away. The entire notion of unalienable rights is that we are endowed with such rights from a Creator...mindless naturalistic forces can't endow us with any rights.
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 07:09:27 AM
Sorry, I am open minded, but I am not going to "do" a unicorn ;-) Valkyrie ... maybe ... if she will take the armor off.
Valkyries are a lot like female Klingons, I think. They too are fictional, though.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 02:04:46 PM
Belief in the existence of God by itself isn't religious at all. You could call it a philosophical belief or a secular belief. For me personally it does have ramifications. It provides a basis to believe humans are special, that we are born equal and we aren't just the by product of naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence. It provides a basis for the golden rule.
And that is another reason to kill religion ... to establish Caligula level dictatorship. We can't all be Caligula ... there can only be one (we hope). Mustn't let the Roman augury say that Caligula might have an unlucky day ;-)
All religions should do the smart thing by classifying themselves as mythology.
It is the direction they are inevitably headed anyway. Fighting it is futile.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 28, 2017, 06:06:10 PM
Valkyries are a lot like female Klingons, I think. They too are fictional, though.
Like potato chips though, do you prefer smooth or with ridges ;-) Fictional people, as projections of interior mental states, are quite real, just not in a way you can accept. Do you accept that you are real ... figment of your own imagination? You are just a moment-to-moment conglomeration of neural states ... no different than a dream. Vulcans are a reflection of the geekiness of real people, Klingons are a reflection of the militancy of real people. The people are real, so are their characteristics. Humans project, both on each other, and onto fictions. We also abstract (see science) ... since science starts with abstractions, does that make it fictional? Well we can confirm in some ways, the fictions of science. But literary fictions can be confirmed, but in a different way, by reading a book or watching a video.
Quote from: Sorginak on March 28, 2017, 06:37:47 PM
All religions should do the smart thing by classifying themselves as mythology.
It is the direction they are inevitably headed anyway. Fighting it is futile.
Correct. Honesty is the best policy. So which mythological person or beast are you? Admit it, you know you want to. I am more Dionysian than Apollonian.
The whole reason I'm atheist is that I find no compelling reason to believe god or any gods exist. If the question is purely theoretical then I would say if I had evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt; absolute empirical evidence, then I could reconsider my position. But the god of the bible is malevolent and I still wouldn't worship him. Genocide, slavery, sexism, human and animal sacrifice... These are things promoted or supposedly done by god. You are guilty of sin as soon as you're born and the penalty is being cast into a pit of fire for all eternity unless you worship him. He set impossibly high standards that we all fall terribly short of and then penalizes us for not living up. What kind of love is that? And Christians make excuses for it. That is the definition of an abusive relationship.
G-d is malevolent in this life, you don't have to wait for the afterlife. In that sense, the Bible is realistic, not idealistic. Even Jesus gets crucified. That would happen for real, here and now, if it were real.
Quote from: Aposterioriunum on March 28, 2017, 06:49:43 PM
The whole reason I'm atheist is that I find no compelling reason to believe god or any gods exist. If the question is purely theoretical then I would say if I had evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt; absolute empirical evidence, then I could reconsider my position. But the god of the bible is malevolent and I still wouldn't worship him. Genocide, slavery, sexism, human and animal sacrifice... These are things promoted or supposedly done by god. You are guilty of sin as soon as you're born and the penalty is being cast into a pit of fire for all eternity unless you worship him. He set impossibly high standards that we all fall terribly short of and then penalizes us for not living up. What kind of love is that? And Christians make excuses for it. That is the definition of an abusive relationship.
Hi! Glad to have your input!
The point, that you made well, is that God is not praiseworthy, nor could he be worshipped by any sane human, unless staying out of hell were the only consideration - which it might be, if it were real. I'd rather be tortured forever in hell than pretend to worship such a monster!
Quote from: Baruch on March 28, 2017, 06:42:34 PM
Correct. Honesty is the best policy. So which mythological person or beast are you? Admit it, you know you want to. I am more Dionysian than Apollonian.
I'm a decidedly male version of Gaia.
Quote from: Sorginak on March 28, 2017, 07:03:54 PM
I'm a decidedly male version of Gaia.
So you want trees planted all over you, and animals taking a piss and a crap on you ;-)
In Egyptian mythology, the Earth is male, called Geb. The Sky is female, called Nut. They get together ...
Quoteauthor=Mike Cl link=topic=10576.msg1172744#msg1172744 date=1490728302]
Interesting comment. I like where your belief has taken you. But I have basically, the same world view as you, but without any belief system. It matters not that nature produced humans as a happenstance. No 'creator' needed for me. I view humans as special and should have the right to equal opportunities--or at least fair opportunities in life. We are not born equal in any sense. But that does not mean some should have more 'fair' treatment or opportunities than others. The Golden Rule, in almost all of it's forms, is an excellent way to live; and I model it as best I can.
A Creator isn't necessary to adopt beliefs about morality and human conduct. However, if a Creator doesn't exist the world is an amoral place and one can adopt whatever moral conduct they want to. Morality is just a matter of opinion. If a ruthless dictator gains power and decides to rule a country with an iron fist and enslaves the masses (like Korea for instance) we could object if we believed human rights really existed. But what right do humans who were never intended to exist and are just the accidental by products of the laws of physics have? If it's mere opinion what makes one persons opinion more valid than another? If there really are moral laws like physical laws where do they come from? No, if anything nature is the survival of the fittest. The weak are brushed aside. If we were intentionally caused to exist the universe was created for our benefit. We are technically all brothers and sisters and there is a basis for inferring we are born equal.
QuoteFor me taking god or creator out of the picture reduces the number of questions I have. If I believed in god, i'd want to know who/what created god--and so on. If I believed in god, I'd want to know how this god could be so bumbling and bungling in it's creation; how it displays no moral or ethical fabric and a raft of other questions. So, for me, there is no god and I don't have to try and figure out all that stuff about it.
We can always ask one further question beyond our knowledge. Aren't you just as curious where naturalistic forces came from? Did time and matter always exist? We may never even really know how the universe came to be. Its easier to be a theist than a theologian.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 07:18:46 PM
A Creator isn't necessary to adopt beliefs about morality and human conduct. However, if a Creator doesn't exist the world is an amoral place and one can adopt whatever moral conduct they want to.
Incorrect.
You keep making it seem as though you are reasonable, yet then you become unreasonable in the next sentence you write.
You have serious mental issues.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 07:18:46 PM
A Creator isn't necessary to adopt beliefs about morality and human conduct. However, if a Creator doesn't exist the world is an amoral place and one can adopt whatever moral conduct they want to. Morality is just a matter of opinion. If a ruthless dictator gains power and decides to rule a country with an iron fist and enslaves the masses (like Korea for instance) we could object if we believed human rights really existed. But what right do humans who were never intended to exist and are just the accidental by products of the laws of physics have? If it's mere opinion what makes one persons opinion more valid than another? If there really are moral laws like physical laws where do they come from? No, if anything nature is the survival of the fittest. The weak are brushed aside. If we were intentionally caused to exist the universe was created for our benefit. We are technically all brothers and sisters and there is a basis for inferring we are born equal.
Yes, the world is an amoral place. And yes, humans do adopt whatever morals and ethics they wish. Look back on history and you will see that morals and ethics are created by and drafted by cultures. Each culture has a different view of what is ethical or moral. There is no authority of either morals or ethics to check in with. Humans should have the right to fair and equal treatment just because they are born. At least that is how I view it. And no, there is no place where moral laws are demonstrated as the physical laws are. But then, we know the physical 'laws' exist and work in the places we have been able to test them. We think they are universal--but we don't know that yet.
Survival of the fittest. I think many people have a confused view of what that means. It simply means that species and life forms exist when they conform best to a particular environment. Some bacteria are fit to survive in my guts--but humans would not survive in that type of environment. It does not mean the 'strongest'. Strength has little to do with surviving. In this world, it seems if life is possible it is present; life is exists in a myriad of places and environments. A creator is not necessary for that to be so. And no, the weak are not bushed aside by nature. Nature does not care; if a species is not able to live in a particular environment, then it dies. Weak/strong--doesn't matter; adaptability matters.
Yes, we are all brothers and sisters; we can all be traced back to Africa and to some pretty specific areas and people. But that does not make us equal in that we are all born the same. We are not--not physically or mentally. Some are handicapped to the max. Some are not. What we should focus on is that we should all have a fair chance to live as we wish within whatever society we happen to be born into.
The universe was not created for our benefit. It simply just is. And we are a byproduct of said universe. Happenstance, all of it.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 04:29:24 PM
I think you misspoke here because nothing could be a more dangerous threat to the notion of inalienable rights than atheistic belief. Speaking as an American the foundation of inalienable rights is found in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
If we owe our existence to mindless naturalistic forces that didn't care one whit if we existed whence do any inalienable rights come from? From that belief it follows we don't have any right to live at all, we don't have any right to eat or breathe have shelter or clothes. We have no right to be free and not enslaved by anyone. Apart from that fact we can pretend we have rights and agree to it but in reality its a phantom. If rights are granted by humans...they aren't rights at all they're privileges that can be taken away. The entire notion of unalienable rights is that we are endowed with such rights from a Creator...mindless naturalistic forces can't endow us with any rights.
Just because some theist claimed morality for religion does not make it so. Inalienable rights are tied to a functioning society of empathetic social animals. It has nothing to do with god.
my childhood friend to appear here and annouce she wants to be my girlfriend then takes her clothes off and fuck me
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 29, 2017, 12:01:32 AM
Just because some theist claimed morality for religion does not make it so. Inalienable rights are tied to a functioning society of empathetic social animals. It has nothing to do with god.
You aren't describing the US, or any other country. We are not empathetic, not functioning and have no inalienable rights.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 04:29:24 PM
I think you misspoke here because nothing could be a more dangerous threat to the notion of inalienable rights than atheistic belief. Speaking as an American the foundation of inalienable rights is found in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
If we owe our existence to mindless naturalistic forces that didn't care one whit if we existed whence do any inalienable rights come from?
I used unalienable rights lightly with tongue in cheek to help you get the point. Unalienable rights implies that such a thing actually exists outside of man, which it obviously does not. Yes it even says this in a political document kept under glass in Washington DC, a document which politicians and blind patriots glorify on par with the Bible. Unalienable rights are human constructs. They are invented to justify something which does not exist.
The Declaration of Independence was written by revolutionary zealots defying the King. They make the claim that God has granted them rights more sovereign than anything bestowed by a King. It helps justify their cause to themselves and those who will follow. Their hearts were half in the right place, so I will allow them some latitude with their silly claim.
But I will use their concept as they intended to make the same point to those who want to exert control over others as part of some imagined divine birthright. If there are unalienable rights, even if granted by divine spirit, why should a mere religion of mortals have the right to control anyone but themselves?
Getting rid of trump and the republican party might give me pause to reconsider whether there's really a magic man in the sky or not..of course it would require an entire rewrite of history over the past decade or so.
Quote from: Baruch on March 29, 2017, 07:04:30 AM
You aren't describing the US, or any other country. We are not empathetic, not functioning and have no inalienable rights.
Clearly it's because we don't have enough theists. Stupid atheists keeping us away from utopia.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 29, 2017, 11:13:51 AM
Clearly it's because we don't have enough theists. Stupid atheists keeping us away from utopia.
That is what atheists claim. Ugly men claim they don't get dates because the women are heartless bitches.
Quote from: Baruch on March 29, 2017, 12:45:41 PM
That is what atheists claim. Ugly men claim they don't get dates because the women are heartless bitches.
Yeah, women are only thinking of their own sexual needs.
Quote from: Baruch on March 29, 2017, 12:45:41 PM
That is what atheists claim. Ugly men claim they don't get dates because the women are heartless bitches.
Did you just calm me ugly punk? *crackles knuckles and cracks neck*
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on March 29, 2017, 06:01:07 PM
Did you just calm me ugly punk? *crackles knuckles and cracks neck*
You don't look like Blackleaf to me. You idealists (of any kind) can stuff your drug induced utopias in a pipe, and smoke them.
Quote from: Baruch on March 29, 2017, 06:28:54 PM
You don't look like Blackleaf to me. You idealists (of any kind) can stuff your drug induced utopias in a pipe, and smoke them.
*Walks toward Baruch with still cracking knuckles*
Quote from: Baruch on March 29, 2017, 12:45:41 PM
That is what atheists claim. Ugly men claim they don't get dates because the women are heartless bitches.
Few atheists really believe that ridding the world of theists would allow mankind to build a utopia. That'll probably happen when the robots take over. Ridding the world of all religions (which is an impossible goal) would certainly make the world a better place, but without religion, dogma would still remain.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 30, 2017, 01:16:10 AM
Few atheists really believe that ridding the world of theists would allow mankind to build a utopia. That'll probably happen when the robots take over. Ridding the world of all religions (which is an impossible goal) would certainly make the world a better place, but without religion, dogma would still remain.
I knew you were kidding. Cheshire Cat ... not so much.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 29, 2017, 12:01:32 AM
Just because some theist claimed morality for religion does not make it so. Inalienable rights are tied to a functioning society of empathetic social animals. It has nothing to do with god.
I'd love to ask you to explain that but I suspect the explanation would be as goofy as the assertion.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 07:17:13 PM
I'd love to ask you to explain that but I suspect the explanation would be as goofy as the assertion.
He can quote John Locke, or Adam Smith, or some other peruke wearing escapee from the Enlightenment. Modern Enlightenment (E O Wilson) says we are all ants, and that we should live in a hill, and serve a Queen ;-)
Quoteauthor=SGOS link=topic=10576.msg1172837#msg1172837 date=1490790998]
I used unalienable rights lightly with tongue in cheek to help you get the point. Unalienable rights implies that such a thing actually exists outside of man, which it obviously does not. Yes it even says this in a political document kept under glass in Washington DC, a document which politicians and blind patriots glorify on par with the Bible. Unalienable rights are human constructs. They are invented to justify something which does not exist.
I'm confused why do you get to assert your beliefs (Something which obviously does not exist) as if they are incontrovertibly scientifically established facts whereas I can't offer an opinion we owe our existence to a Creator without offering evidence (which is summarily dismissed). What makes it so obvious other than your complete faith its true?
QuoteThe Declaration of Independence was written by revolutionary zealots defying the King. They make the claim that God has granted them rights more sovereign than anything bestowed by a King. It helps justify their cause to themselves and those who will follow. Their hearts were half in the right place, so I will allow them some latitude with their silly claim.
I think they knew if they didn't attach the rights to a Creator they couldn't be unalienable. Humans can only grant each other permission we can't grant rights unless you want to deify certain humans.
QuoteBut I will use their concept as they intended to make the same point to those who want to exert control over others as part of some imagined divine birthright. If there are unalienable rights, even if granted by divine spirit, why should a mere religion of mortals have the right to control anyone but themselves?
They shouldn't and I'm in favor of a secular government. Our form of government isn't perfect by a long shot but it is the most human rights friendly country. I assume its escaped your attention that atheistic governments tend to have an abysmal human rights record. That's because under atheism thought, there are no unalienable rights.
Drew ... so see, you are clearly a theist, who was masquerading as a cosmologist. Not good form.
Quote from: Baruch on March 30, 2017, 07:45:14 PM
Drew ... so see, you are clearly a theist, who was masquerading as a cosmologist. Not good form.
I'm not responsible for your meanderings...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 08:40:59 PM
I'm not responsible for your meanderings...
Your attempt at theism, is not up to par. You are arguing at a blank wall, expecting it to talk back. People who talk about, or imagine, what happened in the first three minutes of the Big Bang ... are Steven Weinberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Three_Minutes
Worship him if you must, he has a Nobel Prize. There is no repeatable observation of what happened in the first 300,000 years (of their estimated time since the Big Bang until the 3.5K radiation becomes visible). And of course, no controlled experiments, except such as at the LHC ... but that isn't how the Big Bang came about (except perhaps in your theory). Wonder how many undetectable universes have been created since the LHC went operational?
Quote from: Baruch on March 30, 2017, 09:11:14 PM
Your attempt at theism, is not up to par. You are arguing at a blank wall, expecting it to talk back. People who talk about, or imagine, what happened in the first three minutes of the Big Bang ... are Steven Weinberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Three_Minutes
Worship him if you must, he has a Nobel Prize. There is no repeatable observation of what happened in the first 300,000 years (of their estimated time since the Big Bang until the 3.5K radiation becomes visible). And of course, no controlled experiments, except such as at the LHC ... but that isn't how the Big Bang came about (except perhaps in your theory). Wonder how many undetectable universes have been created since the LHC went operational?
I don't care if I'm up to whatever expectations you have created in the far recesses of your mind. I'm not responsible for your labels or edicts. I'm not here to live up to or down to your expectations. I have no idea what happened in the first three minutes nor does it matter. I draw my inference from what has obtained subsequently regardless if it meets your expectations.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 09:20:02 PM
I don't care if I'm up to whatever expectations you have created in the far recesses of your mind. I'm not responsible for your labels or edicts. I'm not here to live up to or down to your expectations. I have no idea what happened in the first three minutes nor does it matter. I draw my inference from what has obtained subsequently regardless if it meets your expectations.
We have the same data. We know that objective conclusions can't be made. The materialists have their subjective and you have yours. Both argue pointlessly as to which is more logical ... but logical isn't worth shit. You were there and saw, or you didn't. I am betting nobody did. Now we can observe the here and now, and we can draw conclusions about that. We are both theists ... I don't need 14 billion years ago ... to know. I don't need logic either. Just saying. My cat sitting behind my computer, she knows. Why don't you?
yes some of the founders believed in the existence of god so what. a few of them didnt.... and it doesn't mean anything anyways. As far as I know the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing and is not a part of the law of the U.S.; its just a speach- no official inalienable rights.
Yes Drew I am curious about where the universe came from but I have no way to investigate to find out; neither does any one else; and it doesn't really make any difference in my life to know the answer. So I just don't waste time thinking about it.
I guess a twist on the OP would be to ask what would not be a good reason to believe in a god. Well the first answer to that question would be not the Bible (after seeing the errors listed at kyroot-reason#25 I have to ask what other errors are in there) because it has already been shown to be unreliable.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 28, 2017, 02:30:41 AM
A system of worship of god/gods tends to be heavily related with the idea that god/gods exists.
Well, yeah, but some odd people seem to think so. Or at least make the arguement.
Quote from: Hydra009
A system of worship of god/gods tends to be heavily related with the idea that god/gods exists.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 31, 2017, 04:24:11 AM
Well, yeah, but some odd people seem to think so. Or at least make the arguement.
I remember we had a self-defined 'cultural christian' here once.
Bloke didn't claim to believe in God but went to church, prayed, praised god and did things in name of the church because he thought it was a good institution to build a community and society around, I seem to remember.
Dude was weird.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 07:43:35 PM
I'm confused why do you get to assert your beliefs (Something which obviously does not exist) as if they are incontrovertibly scientifically established facts whereas I can't offer an opinion we owe our existence to a Creator without offering evidence (which is summarily dismissed). What makes it so obvious other than your complete faith its true?
You are starting to glimpse the problem in drawing conclusions from nonsense. I can't do it, and you can't do it and remain on logical ground. See: "Tongue in cheek"
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 07:43:35 PM
I think they knew if they didn't attach the rights to a Creator they couldn't be unalienable. Humans can only grant each other permission we can't grant rights unless you want to deify certain humans.
Yes, and their claims of the existence of unalienable rights has always perplexed me, especially for a group trying to establish a secular government, while defying the divine birthright of a king.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 07:43:35 PM
I assume its escaped your attention that atheistic governments tend to have an abysmal human rights record. That's because under atheism thought, there are no unalienable rights.
I'm well aware that some atheistic governments have had abysmal human rights records. I'm also aware of he human rights abuses of Theocratic governments, including countries that are Christian, Islamic, and Hindu.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 31, 2017, 06:08:43 AM
I remember we had a self-defined 'cultural christian' here once.
Bloke didn't claim to believe in God but went to church, prayed, praised god and did things in name of the church because he thought it was a good institution to build a community and society around, I seem to remember.
Dude was weird.
I've met them before. Following "The Rules" gets you into heaven. Very medieval. But they exist. Politicians are mostly like that.
Quote from: SGOS on March 31, 2017, 09:53:22 AM
You are starting to glimpse the problem in drawing conclusions from nonsense. I can't do it, and you can't do it and remain on logical ground. See: "Tongue in cheek"
Yes, and their claims of the existence of unalienable rights has always perplexed me, especially for a group trying to establish a secular government, while defying the divine birthright of a king.
I'm well aware that some atheistic governments have had abysmal human rights records. I'm also aware of he human rights abuses of Theocratic governments, including countries that are Christian, Islamic, and Hindu.
That was harsh, honest, and I am in AWE!
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 07:17:13 PM
I'd love to ask you to explain that but I suspect the explanation would be as goofy as the assertion.
If you think that the sciences of biology and psychology are goofy, then yeah. It will be very goofy. You see, many animals live in groups. These groups remain together because of shared benefits that come from mutual understandings of what they are expected to contribute. Some of these social animals developed empathy, the ability to relate to others' suffering, in order to strengthen these mutual understandings. Humans are not the only animals with an idea of "inalienable rights." If a mother penguin loses its child and decides to kidnap another mother's chick, the whole colony will create a wall and push the offender away. Those protecting the victim have no direct gain from doing that, except knowing that the colony would protect them if the same happened to them. Elephants have empathy too, and will even mourn their dead.
Humans are little different. We are social creatures, so we draw benefits from mutual understandings of what is expected of each person. We have empathy, which keeps us from violating others and also motivates us to protect others, which in the end benefits the whole. Humans have only gone one step further by developing laws to promote harmony. Most animals have abstract, unspoken rules embedded in their instincts, but we've put those rules into specific words on paper. Again, God has nothing to do with that.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 31, 2017, 12:05:51 PM
If you think that the sciences of biology and psychology are goofy, then yeah. It will be very goofy. You see, many animals live in groups. These groups remain together because of share benefits that comes from mutual understandings of what they are expected to contribute. Some of these social animals developed empathy, the ability to relate to others' suffering, in order to strengthen these mutual understandings. Humans are not the only animals with an idea of "inalienable rights." If a mother penguin loses its child and decides to kidnap another mother's chick, the whole colony will create a wall and push the offender away. Those protecting the victim have nothing no direct gain from doing that, except knowing that the colony would protect them if the same happened to them. Elephants have empathy too, and will even mourn their dead.
Humans are little different. We are social creatures, so we draw benefits from mutual understandings of what is expected of each person. We have empathy, which keeps us from violating others and also motivates us to protect others, which in the end benefits the whole. Humans have only gone one step further by developing laws to promote harmony. Most animals have abstract, unspoken rules embedded in their instincts, but we've put those rules into specific words on paper. Again, God has nothing to do with that.
You have to understand animals...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 31, 2017, 12:27:13 PM
You have to understand animals...
Yes! For that is what humans are........................
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 31, 2017, 01:03:53 PM
Yes! For that is what humans are........................
We are atoms ... please give the vote to the water molecule.
Quote from: Baruch on March 31, 2017, 01:05:10 PM
We are atoms ... please give the vote to the water molecule.
Okay--we are atoms. So what?? How does that help us understand how we work in a society?
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 31, 2017, 01:15:08 PM
Okay--we are atoms. So what?? How does that help us understand how we work in a society?
Apparently since people are 70% water, and water is a polar molecule, that is why humans are so social and anti-social at the same time. Depends on which way we approach each other. Also our ideas are all wet ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 31, 2017, 05:56:29 PM
Apparently since people are 70% water, and water is a polar molecule, that is why humans are so social and anti-social at the same time. Depends on which way we approach each other. Also our ideas are all wet ;-)
This much is true.
Also our dreams, on occasion.
QuoteIf you think that the sciences of biology and psychology are goofy, then yeah. It will be very goofy. You see, many animals live in groups. These groups remain together because of shared benefits that come from mutual understandings of what they are expected to contribute. Some of these social animals developed empathy, the ability to relate to others' suffering, in order to strengthen these mutual understandings. Humans are not the only animals with an idea of "inalienable rights." If a mother penguin loses its child and decides to kidnap another mother's chick, the whole colony will create a wall and push the offender away. Those protecting the victim have no direct gain from doing that, except knowing that the colony would protect them if the same happened to them. Elephants have empathy too, and will even mourn their dead.
I don't think any sciences are goofy...your notion we can derive unalienable rights from nature is. Animals also eat each other, fornicate with whoever is available. Some animals have offspring and eat some of them. The black widow often bites the head off of her 'mate'.
QuoteHumans are little different. We are social creatures, so we draw benefits from mutual understandings of what is expected of each person. We have empathy, which keeps us from violating others and also motivates us to protect others, which in the end benefits the whole. Humans have only gone one step further by developing laws to promote harmony. Most animals have abstract, unspoken rules embedded in their instincts, but we've put those rules into specific words on paper. Again, God has nothing to do with that.
Many humans have acted completely indifferent to the notion of unalienable rights including secular governments and religious theocracies. Just look at WWI WWII to see how friendly humans can be towards one another. If we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that didn't intend or care about us the universe is an amoral place any ideas we have about morality or rights are just opinions none of which is correct. Its odd you don't recognize the philosophical implications of your own belief.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 01, 2017, 07:26:46 PM
I don't think any sciences are goofy...your notion we can derive unalienable rights from nature is. Animals also eat each other, fornicate with whoever is available. Some animals have offspring and eat some of them. The black widow often bites the head off of her 'mate'.
Yes, we reject G-d, but worship guys dead for 200-300 years who wore powdered wigs ;-)
QuoteMany humans have acted completely indifferent to the notion of unalienable rights including secular governments and religious theocracies. Just look at WWI WWII to see how friendly humans can be towards one another. If we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that didn't intend or care about us the universe is an amoral place any ideas we have about morality or rights are just opinions none of which is correct. Its odd you don't recognize the philosophical implications of your own belief.
Not many here give any credit to philosophy. They consider anything not logic, math or physical science, to be fiction. Damn pointy eared Vulcans!
Quote from: Baruch on April 01, 2017, 07:33:34 PM
Not many here give any credit to philosophy. They consider anything not logic, math or physical science, to be fiction. Damn pointy eared Vulcans!
I aced all my philosophy classes throughout my schooling. However, philosophy is not science.
Philosophy helped me to understand that god does not exist, after all.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 07:38:13 PM
I aced all my philosophy classes throughout my schooling. However, philosophy is not science.
Philosophy helped me to understand that god does not exist, after all.
Not Vulcan? Romulan then? Definitely not Klingon.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 07:38:13 PM
I aced all my philosophy classes throughout my schooling. However, philosophy is not science.
Philosophy helped me to understand that god does not exist, after all.
Your disbelief in theism is philosophical?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 01, 2017, 07:26:46 PM
I don't think any sciences are goofy...your notion we can derive unalienable rights from nature is. Animals also eat each other, fornicate with whoever is available. Some animals have offspring and eat some of them. The black widow often bites the head off of her 'mate'.
Many humans have acted completely indifferent to the notion of unalienable rights including secular governments and religious theocracies. Just look at WWI WWII to see how friendly humans can be towards one another. If we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that didn't intend or care about us the universe is an amoral place any ideas we have about morality or rights are just opinions none of which is correct. Its odd you don't recognize the philosophical implications of your own belief.
Irrelevant. Your claim was that inalienable rights could not be justified without god. I just justified them to you. We, as social animals, draw collective benefit from respecting the well being of other people. We will continue to draw that benefit, with or without theism. The existence of god is entirely unnecessary. In fact, given the rich history of gods being used as excuses to violate others, I'd say that the concept of inalienable rights exists in spite of theism.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 01, 2017, 08:05:42 PM
Your disbelief in theism is philosophical?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 02, 2017, 01:40:07 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
I am pulling myself up by my own bootstraps, like Baron Munchausen (Agrippean skepticism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
Quoteauthor=Blackleaf link=topic=10576.msg1173363#msg1173363 date=1491109114]
Irrelevant.
Of course facts that contradict a persons point of view are always irrelevant.
QuoteYour claim was that inalienable rights could not be justified without god.
Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:
"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights, based on Natural Law, are "God-given." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's will. Rights that are subject to government restriction or license are called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God. QuoteI just justified them to you. We, as social animals, draw collective benefit from respecting the well being of other people. We will continue to draw that benefit, with or without theism. The existence of god is entirely unnecessary. In fact, given the rich history of gods being used as excuses to violate others, I'd say that the concept of inalienable rights exists in spite of theism.
Neither nature or humans can grant fellow humans inalienable rights. They can only grant privileges which can be revoked at anytime. Its sad really that you believe we owe our existence to forces that didn't intend or care if our lives came about yet some how think such forces can endow us with rights...
Unfortunately there is a shortage of peruke wearing Americans. With the many changes over time, including many immigrants from non-English cultures, invention of partisan political parties (Federalists last ran in the 1800 election), the propagation of un-constitutional forms of money (Federal Reserve), a state of permanent war (since approximately 1940 with few interruptions) etc ... we aren't very Revolutionary any more. We have become just another European colony ;-)
I agree that a fair assessment of ethics vs materialism or naturalism ... says that anything goes. Humans choose to be less than predators, by choice ... neither matter nor nature tell us that ... natural law is a total failure after Darwin. This would be different, if we are all rational and civilized ... but we aren't Vulcans.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 01:56:20 PM
Of course facts that contradict a persons point of view are always irrelevant.
Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:
"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights, based on Natural Law, are "God-given." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's will. Rights that are subject to government restriction or license are called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God.
Neither nature or humans can grant fellow humans inalienable rights. They can only grant privileges which can be revoked at anytime. Its sad really that you believe we owe our existence to forces that didn't intend or care if our lives came about yet some how think such forces can endow us with rights...
I don't care what blind claim some dopped up theist came up with. Inalienable rights have nothing to do with God. No gods instilled them in us. Nature did. Inalienable rights were invented as a concept in defiance of the divine authority of the king. I don't give a shit if he says "God did it."
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 02, 2017, 01:40:07 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
I read the first two paragraphs. According to it skeptics are or were skeptical of any and all claims that had less than nearly ironclad reasons to suppose something is true. Modern skeptics tend to be skeptical only of the things they don't believe in the first place but fail to scrutinize ideas they believe have merit to any degree.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 07:23:16 PM
I read the first two paragraphs. According to it skeptics are or were skeptical of any and all claims that had less than nearly ironclad reasons to suppose something is true. Modern skeptics tend to be skeptical only of the things they don't believe in the first place but fail to scrutinize ideas they believe have merit to any degree.
Correct .. most rationalists aren't very rational, except in their own egos. I don't advocate total skepticism or nihilism either. Just that so called "facts" aren't as factual as people claim they are ... because of bias. Like what happened in the first 300,000 years of the Big Bang ... sorry, we don't know, aren't likely to ever know. Therefore any argument, about anything, is weak, if we start from what we don't know and maybe never will. I know the here and now. That is a good start.
Personally ... I find the Munchhausen Trilemma to be indisputable. And as a literary character, I like Baron Munchausen. A version of the "wise fool". My posts are based on my idea of what he would post, had we had Internet in the early 18th century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyyilzYtHOk
Gulliver's Travels is also a favorite ... this is from the complete version ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXeHN4G4gUw
ok so the inalienable rights Drew is talking about are the ones in the Declaration of Independence. great sattire to say a god that wants us to be a slave gives us the right of liberty. Even better pursuit of happiness... how can you do that when you're always worried about screwin things up and getting mad at you. Oh yeah you have the right to live until god decides to send Nebuchanezzar or ISIS your way ;-) ;-)
Quote from: fencerider on April 03, 2017, 12:43:57 AM
ok so the inalienable rights Drew is talking about are the ones in the Declaration of Independence. great sattire to say a god that wants us to be a slave gives us the right of liberty. Even better pursuit of happiness... how can you do that when you're always worried about screwin things up and getting mad at you. Oh yeah you have the right to live until god decides to send Nebuchanezzar or ISIS your way ;-) ;-)
Yeah, inalienable rights are human rights by existence. No deity need apply or be concerned.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 07:23:16 PM
I read the first two paragraphs. According to it skeptics are or were skeptical of any and all claims that had less than nearly ironclad reasons to suppose something is true. Modern skeptics tend to be skeptical only of the things they don't believe in the first place but fail to scrutinize ideas they believe have merit to any degree.
Pro tip: read more than the first two paragraphs
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 07:23:16 PM
I read the first two paragraphs. According to it skeptics are or were skeptical of any and all claims that had less than nearly ironclad reasons to suppose something is true. Modern skeptics tend to be skeptical only of the things they don't believe in the first place but fail to scrutinize ideas they believe have merit to any degree.
In most arguements, anything after "but" is false.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 03, 2017, 02:16:49 AM
Pro tip: read more than the first two paragraphs
Counter tip: Post excerpts you think are germane to our discussion. How am I supposed to know what you think is important?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ML-mATuPkqs/VjaBY1F1jbI/AAAAAAAAD1w/9yfWV3p0iSE/s1600/Functionally%2Billiterate.png)
Quote from: fencerider on April 03, 2017, 12:43:57 AM
ok so the inalienable rights Drew is talking about are the ones in the Declaration of Independence. great sattire to say a god that wants us to be a slave gives us the right of liberty. Even better pursuit of happiness... how can you do that when you're always worried about screwin things up and getting mad at you. Oh yeah you have the right to live until god decides to send Nebuchanezzar or ISIS your way ;-) ;-)
It's disappointing that neither you or others can distinguish between religious theism and philosophical theism. I'm not sorry though because its willful ignorance.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 03, 2017, 06:00:21 PM
It's disappointing that neither you or others can distinguish between religious theism and philosophical theism. I'm not sorry though because its willful ignorance.
Anarchists hate organizing, because they aren't any good at it ;-) This is why anarchist political parties are so lame.
the members of the Republican party; and the Libertarians; are the anarchists. They are the ones always saying they don't want government telling them what to do.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 03, 2017, 06:00:21 PM
It's disappointing that neither you or others can distinguish between religious theism and philosophical theism.
Finally right for once Drew. - first time ever hearing those terms for me.
As far as you bringing up the inalienable rights is concerned, you presented a faulty logical argument....
the founders said these inalienable rights come from god => god exists.
and if you want to get further into it, the whole talking point is a fallacy.
founders-
it is self evident that these rights are given to us by god No evidence that these rights were given to us by god. It is more realistic to say that those rights were given to us by men
Quote from: fencerider on April 04, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
Finally right for once Drew. - first time ever hearing those terms for me.
Kind of like when people first learn the difference between religious faith and secular faith.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 04, 2017, 01:03:03 AM
Kind of like when people first learn the difference between religious faith and secular faith.
Folks use the word faith in here as a derisive term meaning belief in something minus any evidence or even believing in something in spite of contrary evidence. They don't acknowledge folks have faith because something has proven itself reliably.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 04, 2017, 12:11:47 PM
Folks use the word faith in here as a derisive term meaning belief in something minus any evidence or even believing in something in spite of contrary evidence. They don't acknowledge folks have faith because something has proven itself reliably.
Then it's not faith, but fact.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 04, 2017, 12:11:47 PM
Folks use the word faith in here as a derisive term meaning belief in something minus any evidence or even believing in something in spite of contrary evidence. They don't acknowledge folks have faith because something has proven itself reliably.
It's not faith if it's proven. And God most certainly is not proven. Personal experience does not qualify as proof either. I thought I had that too for a while, before I realized it was probably all in my head.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 04, 2017, 12:40:15 PM
It's not faith if it's proven. And God most certainly is not proven. Personal experience does not qualify as proof either. I thought I had that too for a while, before I realized it was probably all in my head.
Arithmetic is in your head too ... nature doesn't calculate/count. Ape men do. It takes a person (even Mother Nature if you are into Gaia). If you diss everything that is in your head, which is everything ... then you will have achieved the nihilism you seek.
Quote from: Baruch on April 04, 2017, 12:45:04 PM
Arithmetic is in your head too ... nature doesn't calculate/count. Ape men do. It takes a person (even Mother Nature if you are into Gaia). If you diss everything that is in your head, which is everything ... then you will have achieved the nihilism you seek.
Crisp, Grade A logic there. The only thing your missing is a hip and happenin' meme. Here. I'll hook you up.
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder266/500x/66542266.jpg)
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 03, 2017, 06:00:21 PM
It's disappointing that neither you or others can distinguish between religious theism and philosophical theism. I'm not sorry though because its willful ignorance.
Ah yes, "philosophical theism" - a religion with one member - you.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 04, 2017, 01:07:13 PM
Crisp, Grade A logic there. The only thing your missing is a hip and happenin' meme. Here. I'll hook you up.
Thanks ... people who are misanthropes, don't like people. People who are stupid, don't like thinking. Don't blame the messenger ... just expect less from people.
So we use words we don't understand, and use equations without knowing math ... this is a well known thing in psychology. Necessary even ... if you had to know QM to move your hand, you would still be in your mother's womb. The body has knowledge that the puny consciousness knows nothing of.
It has taken thousands of years to even get a partial handle on the Pythagorean theorem. Because the original proof was flawed, and didn't see any improvement until the 19th century. Did people wait 2000 years before using it? And it turns out it isn't even true in the real world, because it turns out the Earth isn't flat.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 03, 2017, 06:00:21 PM
It's disappointing that neither you or others can distinguish between religious theism and philosophical theism. I'm not sorry though because its willful ignorance.
Please define philosophical theism vs religious theism. I see no difference.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2017, 12:42:53 AM
Please define philosophical theism vs religious theism. I see no difference.
He's just not a part of any official religion. He's an unaffiliated theist. It doesn't make him any less religious (there are plenty of Christians who don't go to church), it just makes him a more unique kind of religious.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 07, 2017, 11:26:09 AM
He's just not a part of any official religion. He's an unaffiliated theist. It doesn't make him any less religious (there are plenty of Christians who don't go to church), it just makes him a more unique kind of religious.
Some of us prefer to be un-filleted ;-) That is why I stay away from churches, those fish bumper stickers are a tell.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 07, 2017, 11:26:09 AM
He's just not a part of any official religion. He's an unaffiliated theist. It doesn't make him any less religious (there are plenty of Christians who don't go to church), it just makes him a more unique kind of religious.
He suggested a difference between philosophical and religious theism. I want to know what it is. Is there a problem with that?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 12, 2017, 03:17:06 AM
He suggested a difference between philosophical and religious theism. I want to know what it is. Is there a problem with that?
Like I posted a few lines up in this string ... people use words without knowing what they mean. He probably doesn't have a different definition. He is also a famous anti-atheist debater in his own mind.
Quote from: Baruch on April 12, 2017, 06:56:05 AM
Like I posted a few lines up in this string ... people use words without knowing what they mean.
Please baruch, that's just homunculus.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 12, 2017, 08:27:39 AM
Please baruch, that's just homunculus.
Homunculus is as homunculus does ... Forrest Homunculus
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 04, 2017, 12:40:15 PM
It's not faith if it's proven. And God most certainly is not proven. Personal experience does not qualify as proof either. I thought I had that too for a while, before I realized it was probably all in my head.
Funny what preachers tell the congregation what faith is. When I looked it up in the Bible, Hebrews 11:1 it says, now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Substance and evidence are not created by man, it is either there or it is not
In the other biblical books it goes on to explain that faith is a gift from God and not something made by man. Seems quite different from very very very strong belief to the ignorance of all other things, doesn't it?
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 02:03:33 AM
Funny what preachers tell the congregation what faith is. When I looked it up in the Bible, Hebrews 11:1 it says, now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Substance and evidence are not created by man, it is either there or it is not
In the other biblical books it goes on to explain that faith is a gift from God and not something made by man. Seems quite different from very very very strong belief to the ignorance of all other things, doesn't it?
Except that god has to first be proven to be real. Faith is needed because there is no evidence for god's existence.
If god was real, there would be no need for faith. If god was real, everyone would believe in god and there would be no disbelief.
Well, going with the ol def of God as "source of all good" (that we inherit/embody/become as spiritual virtues, etc), then believing in God is about as useful as believing the sourse of clean water is at the top of the mountain. Completely ineffective unless you go up there and get it.
Perhaps that's what the fasting and praying was intended for...?
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 02:47:49 AM
Well, going with the ol def of God as "source of all good" (that we inherit/embody/become as spiritual virtues, etc), then believing in God is about as useful as believing the sourse of clean water is at the top of the mountain. Completely ineffective unless you go up there and get it.
Perhaps that's what the fasting and praying was intended for...?
Fasting and praying leads to hallucinations due to not remaining nutritionally sane.
It is no different than what Native Americans, Shamans, etc, do.
Deprive the body of its necessities and one experiences the precise same thing as one who uses drugs.
Go figure.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 14, 2017, 02:50:30 AM
Fasting and praying leads to hallucinations due to not remaining nutritionally sane.
It is no different than what Native Americans, Shamans, etc, do.
Deprive the body of its necessities and one experiences the precise same thing as one who uses drugs.
Go figure.
Makes sense.
I also see the minds capcity to become entrained in both paradigm and perception. Ceasing the patterns of "worldly" interaction would be the first step in coming out of a type of mental hypnosis that we are born wide open into.
The human vehicle has co-evolved with nature and psychedelics likely played a major role in man's mental/creative development. Current research is being done on how psyllocibin hyper connects brain regions that don't normally cross communicate...because our brains learn to compartmentlise information.
One feels a sense of deep connection because the experience is at the root of mans departture from pure animal intellect. It's in our DNA.
Just a thought :)
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 02:03:33 AM
Funny what preachers tell the congregation what faith is. When I looked it up in the Bible, Hebrews 11:1 it says, now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Substance and evidence are not created by man, it is either there or it is not
In the other biblical books it goes on to explain that faith is a gift from God and not something made by man. Seems quite different from very very very strong belief to the ignorance of all other things, doesn't it?
Due to translation fails, the Bible in English is mostly wrong. Faith= Fides = trustworthiness. Faith has to do with the characteristics of another person ... are they a used car dealer or not. If you have faith in a used car dealer, you are a dupe. It isn't Jewish to trust used car dealers. However ... what the Bible passages are talking about, is the future, and the so called invisibility of G-d. For most people G-d is invisible, though G-d is right in front of you. This is a people problem, not a G-d problem. Also modern people don't understand the ancient view of time. To moderns, we look forward ... but ancients looked back. They saw G-d as the past, not the future. And to them G-d in history was tautological ... what has happened, and thus can't be changed is destiny. Destiny isn't in the future, it is in the past. So ... there is a bit of tongue in cheek in the Bible verses ... that are not obvious to moderns, that and the language is bogus. You have to read the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Not that I expect believers to do that, let alone atheists.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 02:47:49 AM
Well, going with the ol def of God as "source of all good" (that we inherit/embody/become as spiritual virtues, etc), then believing in God is about as useful as believing the sourse of clean water is at the top of the mountain. Completely ineffective unless you go up there and get it.
Perhaps that's what the fasting and praying was intended for...?
Fasting and praying are purgatives. You have to realize you are full of shit, before you think you need a Ducolax.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 03:16:59 AM
Makes sense.
I also see the minds capcity to become entrained in both paradigm and perception. Ceasing the patterns of "worldly" interaction would be the first step in coming out of a type of mental hypnosis that we are born wide open into.
The human vehicle has co-evolved with nature and psychedelics likely played a major role in man's mental/creative development. Current research is being done on how psyllocibin hyper connects brain regions that don't normally cross communicate...because our brains learn to compartmentlise information.
One feels a sense of deep connection because the experience is at the root of mans departture from pure animal intellect. It's in our DNA.
Just a thought :)
Already I can tell you know ... about the Matrix. Why are you still here, Neo?
Ok, here's what will convince me of a god.. Trump has massive heart attack and dies then immediately borrows into the ground straight to hell.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 14, 2017, 02:06:08 AM
Except that god has to first be proven to be real. Faith is needed because there is no evidence for god's existence.
If god was real, there would be no need for faith. If god was real, everyone would believe in god and there would be no disbelief.
Real is real whether proven or not.
You're still using the modern (bastardized) version of faith which is no different from man made belief. Unfortunately believers have made this their ignorance blanket.
Gotta go old school for usage., Ephesians 2:8 states we are saved by grace through faith, it is not of our own doing, it is a gift
of God. Of, not from. A gift of gold is very different from a gift from gold.
The proof is a personal revelatory experience of God. That is the authoring of faith.
I see a three step evolution of mind, first there is believing, then comes knowing, then comes doing.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 03:33:19 PM
Real is real whether proven or not.
I see a three step evolution of mind, first there is believing, then comes knowing, then comes doing.
Almost cyclical, first is believing, then convincing yourself that you know what you believe to be true and finally that your belief has been proven to you sufficiently to be considered true....so real is real whether proven or not. I think we have facilities complete with staff ,medications and high fences for people of similar mindsets.
Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2017, 06:58:35 AM
Due to translation fails, the Bible in English is mostly wrong. Faith= Fides = trustworthiness. Faith has to do with the characteristics of another person ... are they a used car dealer or not. If you have faith in a used car dealer, you are a dupe. It isn't Jewish to trust used car dealers. However ... what the Bible passages are talking about, is the future, and the so called invisibility of G-d. For most people G-d is invisible, though G-d is right in front of you. This is a people problem, not a G-d problem. Also modern people don't understand the ancient view of time. To moderns, we look forward ... but ancients looked back. They saw G-d as the past, not the future. And to them G-d in history was tautological ... what has happened, and thus can't be changed is destiny. Destiny isn't in the future, it is in the past. So ... there is a bit of tongue in cheek in the Bible verses ... that are not obvious to moderns, that and the language is bogus. You have to read the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Not that I expect believers to do that, let alone atheists.
Pistis...also a rhetorical technique.
The invisible God eh? Would that be at higher or lower frequency than the visible spectrum? ;)
Brings to mind a few things: One is a quote I think from the Gospel of Thomas, "The kingdom of heaven is within you and all around you, spread throughout the earth though men see it not...." Reminds me of Amun, the Hidden One of the Egyptian pantheon. Also reminds me of one of my favorite creation stories from ancient Judaism. The story of the Ain Soph Or, the endless light of God, and the Tzimtzum or great contraction where God carved out a space in the limitless light for creation to occur and hid himself behind 10 veils.
Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2017, 07:00:55 AM
Already I can tell you know ... about the Matrix. Why are you still here, Neo?
To fly around way too fast and dance fight with agents, why else? Besides, that protein slurry is freakin disgusting!
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 03:33:19 PM
Real is real whether proven or not.
You're still using the modern (bastardized) version of faith which is no different from man made belief. Unfortunately believers have made this their ignorance blanket.
Gotta go old school for usage., Ephesians 2:8 states we are saved by grace through faith, it is not of our own doing, it is a gift of God. Of, not from. A gift of gold is very different from a gift from gold.
The proof is a personal revelatory experience of God. That is the authoring of faith.
I see a three step evolution of mind, first there is believing, then comes knowing, then comes doing.
Personally, I don't give the bible any authority whatsoever. So, trying to figure out what to do or how to act in the real world using the bible is hit-and-miss, at best. (But yes, I have read it and even studied parts of it since it is referenced so often in this culture.) Proof is, I agree with you on this, personal. But that proof cannot be transferred to anybody else; sort of an unprovable proof.
And I see a three step evolution of the material in this material world. First is the thought. Everything material in this world was first a thought. Then the thinker tried to make, or did make, the thought of thing. Then the maker of said thing knows how to make that thing. Example--someone thought of a table. Then made a table even if it took many tries to make the table as it was thought of and then knowing; the person now knew he could make that table.
I don't see any evidence of anything beyond the material world. Spiritual stuff is mostly wishful thinking. There is no soul--there is no spirit--these is nothing supernatural.
It will be interesting to see how Burach and Burach Jr. interact. :)) And I term you Burach Jr. only because he came here first. I regard both of you as interesting and often thought provoking.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 03:33:19 PM
Real is real whether proven or not.
You're still using the modern (bastardized) version of faith which is no different from man made belief. Unfortunately believers have made this their ignorance blanket.
Gotta go old school for usage., Ephesians 2:8 states we are saved by grace through faith, it is not of our own doing, it is a gift of God. Of, not from. A gift of gold is very different from a gift from gold.
The proof is a personal revelatory experience of God. That is the authoring of faith.
I see a three step evolution of mind, first there is believing, then comes knowing, then comes doing.
Jewish spiritual cycle ... first pray for repentance, then repent to enable good deeds, do good deeds including a return to prayer. Ephesians was Messianic Jewish ... Gentile Christianity didn't exist when it was written. Of course it is important to be meek/humble ... so if you do manage to pray, repent or do good deeds, don't take credit yourself, but credit the Source.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 04:05:15 PM
Pistis...also a rhetorical technique.
The invisible God eh? Would that be at higher or lower frequency than the visible spectrum? ;)
Brings to mind a few things: One is a quote I think from the Gospel of Thomas, "The kingdom of heaven is within you and all around you, spread throughout the earth though men see it not...." Reminds me of Amun, the Hidden One of the Egyptian pantheon. Also reminds me of one of my favorite creation stories from ancient Judaism. The story of the Ain Soph Or, the endless light of God, and the Tzimtzum or great contraction where God carved out a space in the limitless light for creation to occur and hid himself behind 10 veils.
I am a Kabbalist. If you want, I can kabbal something together ;-)
Quote from: Sorginak on April 14, 2017, 02:06:08 AM
Except that god has to first be proven to be real. Faith is needed because there is no evidence for god's existence.
If god was real, there would be no need for faith. If god was real, everyone would believe in god and there would be no disbelief.
!. Define proof
2. Prove proof ... zing!
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 14, 2017, 07:53:13 PM
Personally, I don't give the bible any authority whatsoever. So, trying to figure out what to do or how to act in the real world using the bible is hit-and-miss, at best. (But yes, I have read it and even studied parts of it since it is referenced so often in this culture.) Proof is, I agree with you on this, personal. But that proof cannot be transferred to anybody else; sort of an unprovable proof.
And I see a three step evolution of the material in this material world. First is the thought. Everything material in this world was first a thought. Then the thinker tried to make, or did make, the thought of thing. Then the maker of said thing knows how to make that thing. Example--someone thought of a table. Then made a table even if it took many tries to make the table as it was thought of and then knowing; the person now knew he could make that table.
I don't see any evidence of anything beyond the material world. Spiritual stuff is mostly wishful thinking. There is no soul--there is no spirit--these is nothing supernatural.
It will be interesting to see how Burach and Burach Jr. interact. :)) And I term you Burach Jr. only because he came here first. I regard both of you as interesting and often thought provoking.
After all these years, you still can't spell my handle? Sad. Enjoy your protein slurry. It is an inference that there is anything outside your mind. A reasonable one, no doubt. You could be Nixon in a jar, on Futurama ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 14, 2017, 07:53:13 PM
Personally, I don't give the bible any authority whatsoever. So, trying to figure out what to do or how to act in the real world using the bible is hit-and-miss, at best. (But yes, I have read it and even studied parts of it since it is referenced so often in this culture.) Proof is, I agree with you on this, personal. But that proof cannot be transferred to anybody else; sort of an unprovable proof.
And I see a three step evolution of the material in this material world. First is the thought. Everything material in this world was first a thought. Then the thinker tried to make, or did make, the thought of thing. Then the maker of said thing knows how to make that thing. Example--someone thought of a table. Then made a table even if it took many tries to make the table as it was thought of and then knowing; the person now knew he could make that table.
I don't see any evidence of anything beyond the material world. Spiritual stuff is mostly wishful thinking. There is no soul--there is no spirit--these is nothing supernatural.
It will be interesting to see how Burach and Burach Jr. interact. :)) And I term you Burach Jr. only because he came here first. I regard both of you as interesting and often thought provoking.
I view the Bible through multiple lenses. Mainly as a 66 book conglomerate rock chip off in over 600 book much larger conglomerate rock, but I see it still contains some gold and silver ore for refining and a smattering of gems among the fossils...there's also all the coprolite one could hope to throw!
In your table example the thought was of a form/function and preexisting material is shaped and gathered to "create" the new form. No new material was created. So I see it as with God.
Isn't Burach the lightening horse than Mohamed rode on through the heavens? Same iconography as the white horses that the saints right upon in Revelation, and the divine animal that Kalki, the last incarnation of Vishnu rides upon. So....thanks! ;)
Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2017, 08:15:23 PM
Jewish spiritual cycle ... first pray for repentance, then repent to enable good deeds, do good deeds including a return to prayer. Ephesians was Messianic Jewish ... Gentile Christianity didn't exist when it was written. Of course it is important to be meek/humble ... so if you do manage to pray, repent or do good deeds, don't take credit yourself, but credit the Source.
I can get behind that. :)
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 03:33:19 PM
Real is real whether proven or not.
You're still using the modern (bastardized) version of faith which is no different from man made belief. Unfortunately believers have made this their ignorance blanket.
Gotta go old school for usage., Ephesians 2:8 states we are saved by grace through faith, it is not of our own doing, it is a gift of God. Of, not from. A gift of gold is very different from a gift from gold.
The proof is a personal revelatory experience of God. That is the authoring of faith.
I see a three step evolution of mind, first there is believing, then comes knowing, then comes doing.
I guess God gave me faith, then he decided he wanted it back. Somebody should have told him, "no takebacksies."
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 15, 2017, 12:31:56 AM
I guess God gave me faith, then he decided he wanted it back. Somebody should have told him, "no takebacksies."
So.... you received a divine revelation beyond your minds conjecture/thinking/belief and then...what...doubt it now? Understandable.
Or did you believe really really hard, found massive discrepancies in modern "faith" and now don't believe? Also understandable.
Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2017, 08:22:10 PM
After all these years, you still can't spell my handle? Sad. Enjoy your protein slurry. It is an inference that there is anything outside your mind. A reasonable one, no doubt. You could be Nixon in a jar, on Futurama ;-)
Yeah, Baruch, it is what--20 yrs or more we have been yacking at one another?? Yeah, sad I misspelled your handle. But I fixed that sadness. I was using a keyboard that had the a,w,e,r s.t,i,d, o, and n keys worn away from constant use. The games Fallout (series) and Skyrim will do that. Fixed it yesterday when I received my keyboard stickers from Amazon. Much better now. I do touch type, but having those keys filled in makes it easier. No more sadness.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 15, 2017, 09:02:26 AM
Yeah, Baruch, it is what--20 yrs or more we have been yacking at one another?? Yeah, sad I misspelled your handle. But I fixed that sadness. I was using a keyboard that had the a,w,e,r s.t,i,d, o, and n keys worn away from constant use. The games Fallout (series) and Skyrim will do that. Fixed it yesterday when I received my keyboard stickers from Amazon. Much better now. I do touch type, but having those keys filled in makes it easier. No more sadness.
Some of my keys are worn to illegibility too. So many posts, so little time! But since I type gibberish, it is unnecessary for me to avoid mis-typing ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 10:00:30 AM
Some of my keys are worn to illegibility too. So many posts, so little time! But since I type gibberish, it is unnecessary for me to avoid mis-typing ;-)
I tried ink, but that did not work. Stickers seem to work well and they are cheap to use--cheaper than a new keyboard.
Or you could just learn to type without looking at the keyboard, as I did during typing class in high school.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 15, 2017, 12:54:25 AM
So.... you received a divine revelation beyond your minds conjecture/thinking/belief and then...what...doubt it now? Understandable.
Or did you believe really really hard, found massive discrepancies in modern "faith" and now don't believe? Also understandable.
The discrepancies came after I freed myself from my ~24 years of brainwashing. Before then, I was a kid who was really curious about God and spiritual things. At around age 18, I devoted my life to serving God. I did so not out of obligation, but because I wanted to please God. I prayed every day, I volunteered in several ministries, but God remained silent. He didn't respond to my prayers, he didn't help when my problems grew worse and worse, including my depression. If anything, it seemed like he was trying to drive me away. Eventually, I decided that if God was going to treat me like shit, I was not going to worship him.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 15, 2017, 10:37:47 AM
Or you could just learn to type without looking at the keyboard, as I did during typing class in high school.
That's what I said--I touch type. Learned in HS myself--53 yrs ago. Also sharpened that skill in college--Bus. minor. But I still find it helpful, especially with computer games, that my keys be legible. Skyrim and Fallout 4 can induce to panic at times, and touch typing goes out the window. :)
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 08:58:56 PM
I view the Bible through multiple lenses. Mainly as a 66 book conglomerate rock chip off in over 600 book much larger conglomerate rock, but I see it still contains some gold and silver ore for refining and a smattering of gems among the fossils...there's also all the coprolite one could hope to throw!
In your table example the thought was of a form/function and preexisting material is shaped and gathered to "create" the new form. No new material was created. So I see it as with God.
So, if god does not create new material where does new material come from?
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 15, 2017, 11:26:40 AM
The discrepancies came after I freed myself from my ~24 years of brainwashing. Before then, I was a kid who was really curious about God and spiritual things. At around age 18, I devoted my life to serving God. I did so not out of obligation, but because I wanted to please God. I prayed every day, I volunteered in several ministries, but God remained silent. He didn't respond to my prayers, he didn't help when my problems grew worse and worse, including my depression. If anything, it seemed like he was trying to drive me away. Eventually, I decided that if God was going to treat me like shit, I was not going to worship him.
Exactly what happened to Moses ... driven into the desert by Pharaoh. Nothing changed for 40 years ... until the burning bush. By that time Moses was 80.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 15, 2017, 11:35:41 AM
So, if god does not create new material where does new material come from?
If there are no gods, then given the Bible exists, it wasn't created by any gods. However it was made by people. If people are demigods ... then at least in that sense it was made by gods. Gotta get away from monotheism to see that. For a pagan, anything extraordinary (judgement required) was considered made by some god or other. My standards are lower than theirs ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 15, 2017, 11:26:40 AM
The discrepancies came after I freed myself from my ~24 years of brainwashing. Before then, I was a kid who was really curious about God and spiritual things. At around age 18, I devoted my life to serving God. I did so not out of obligation, but because I wanted to please God. I prayed every day, I volunteered in several ministries, but God remained silent. He didn't respond to my prayers, he didn't help when my problems grew worse and worse, including my depression. If anything, it seemed like he was trying to drive me away. Eventually, I decided that if God was going to treat me like shit, I was not going to worship him.
I can see how that would be off-putting. Imagine myself in that situation I would certainly have to reassess my expectations of God. Many of those expectations are given to us by others. It's usually when I stop pushing on the door so hard that it opens...inwardly.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 15, 2017, 11:35:41 AM
So, if god does not create new material where does new material come from?
No new matter needs to be created. What is created is the expansion of organized space within that material. This creates time and individual forms.
Why is nothing the assumed default state?
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 03:41:27 PM
If there are no gods, then given the Bible exists, it wasn't created by any gods. However it was made by people. If people are demigods ... then at least in that sense it was made by gods. Gotta get away from monotheism to see that. For a pagan, anything extraordinary (judgement required) was considered made by some god or other. My standards are lower than theirs ;-)
People are not demigods. People are just people, and people need to stop using the term god in reference to just anything.
People can create anything with their minds, and that is the only reason god is a concept. Yet, god remains a concept rather than a reality.
God is merely the concept of a creative mind. Nothing more.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 15, 2017, 05:34:32 PM
People are not demigods. People are just people, and people need to stop using the term god in reference to just anything.
People can create anything with their minds, and that is the only reason god is a concept. Yet, god remains a concept rather than a reality.
God is merely the concept of a creative mind. Nothing more.
But you look in the mirror and see? I see Odysseus ... maybe not Heracles, but a demigod for sure. If you are an ape, don't refer to yourself as people.
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 03:41:27 PM
If there are no gods, then given the Bible exists, it wasn't created by any gods. However it was made by people. If people are demigods ... then at least in that sense it was made by gods. Gotta get away from monotheism to see that. For a pagan, anything extraordinary (judgement required) was considered made by some god or other. My standards are lower than theirs ;-)
The bible nor anything else was made by gods. Why do I need to get away from monotheism? I'm not near it. I don't subscribe to any theism--and everybody needs to get away from theism in all of its forms, including monotheism. All are fiction.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 02:03:33 AM
Hebrews 11:1 it says, now faith is..., the evidence of things not seen.
Holy shit! You don't need a primer in logical fallacies to see the bullshit in that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2017, 12:07:39 AM
The bible nor anything else was made by gods. Why do I need to get away from monotheism? I'm not near it. I don't subscribe to any theism--and everybody needs to get away from theism in all of its forms, including monotheism. All are fiction.
But aren't you a monist (there is one cause, which isn't a G-d)? Monism, dualism and pluralism in metaphysics ... applies to both theism and atheism. And yes, stories and books are made by people, not by apes ... and so we are demigods, not demiapes. The emphasis on how humans "descended" from apes, is part of a social Darwinist and misanthropic POV. Not that hating human beings isn't justified, or that I wouldn't slit someone's throat if necessary in the competition for survival.
Quote from: SGOS on April 16, 2017, 06:53:10 AM
Holy shit! You don't need a primer in logical fallacies to see the bullshit in that.
It is actually wrong, not just illogical. I only trust (have faith in) what I can see. Any used Bible salesman can try to fool you with an argument about a reality that you can't presently see. But on the other hand .. do I have faith that you exist ... because your posts are ... evidence of an unseen person? Maybe there is a ghost in my machine!
Quote from: Baruch on April 16, 2017, 08:03:05 AM
But aren't you a monist (there is one cause, which isn't a G-d)? Monism, dualism and pluralism in metaphysics ... applies to both theism and atheism. And yes, stories and books are made by people, not by apes ... and so we are demigods, not demiapes. The emphasis on how humans "descended" from apes, is part of a social Darwinist and misanthropic POV. Not that hating human beings isn't justified, or that I wouldn't slit someone's throat if necessary in the competition for survival.
I do not know how the universe became or began. There very well could be several reasons or causes all coming together at one point--or not. I know that god(s) are fiction--other than that, I don't make any claims. And no, we are not 'demigods'--we are humans and cannot have descended from a god(s) since god(s) are fiction. However, we (humans) have descended from apes and we should take that to heart, especially as a group. Some of the ape social activities help the group and some hurt the group. By studying those activities we can learn as a species which activities we should keep and which we should discard. God has nothing to do with it and all that we learn from god-like behavior is negative activities that will lead our species to ruin if we keep claiming god is good and science is of the devil.
In many ways, apes are more human than we are.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 16, 2017, 10:00:15 AM
In many ways, apes are more human than we are.
Their poo is less smelly? I can see your avatar should be animal, like aitm. Misanthropy is pretty common among anthropes.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2017, 09:41:28 AM
I do not know how the universe became or began. There very well could be several reasons or causes all coming together at one point--or not. I know that god(s) are fiction--other than that, I don't make any claims. And no, we are not 'demigods'--we are humans and cannot have descended from a god(s) since god(s) are fiction. However, we (humans) have descended from apes and we should take that to heart, especially as a group. Some of the ape social activities help the group and some hurt the group. By studying those activities we can learn as a species which activities we should keep and which we should discard. God has nothing to do with it and all that we learn from god-like behavior is negative activities that will lead our species to ruin if we keep claiming god is good and science is of the devil.
Evolution is scientific. But irrelevant to me. It really doesn't matter what pre-humans the humans descend from. That has been used by evil men, to justify much evil. Not that people were ever evil before Darwin ;-( Study the ants or the chimps ... nothing wrong with that. Just don't equate them to us or to each other. They have similarities, but they aren't the same. I don't think I can learn much from other species ... given that human behavior is irrational to begin with. But yes, learn from your dog ... that if you find a master, you might get shelter, food and a belly scratching ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on April 16, 2017, 10:45:21 AM
Evolution is scientific. But irrelevant to me. It really doesn't matter what pre-humans the humans descend from. That has been used by evil men, to justify much evil. Not that people were ever evil before Darwin ;-( Study the ants or the chimps ... nothing wrong with that. Just don't equate them to us or to each other. They have similarities, but they aren't the same. I don't think I can learn much from other species ... given that human behavior is irrational to begin with. But yes, learn from your dog ... that if you find a master, you might get shelter, food and a belly scratching ;-)
Very interesting. You suggest we study animals--animals we can see, hear, feel, touch, eat; experience in the real world here and now. But don't put any store in what we find, for they are not us. Yet you have spent and do spend much time studying a fiction (your gods) and then equate that fiction to us. I find that as totally backward. Discard what we can test--rely on the unknowable (for it is a fiction). That makes little sense--but is interesting. And very theistic.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2017, 11:21:46 AM
Very interesting. You suggest we study animals--animals we can see, hear, feel, touch, eat; experience in the real world here and now. But don't put any store in what we find, for they are not us. Yet you have spent and do spend much time studying a fiction (your gods) and then equate that fiction to us. I find that as totally backward. Discard what we can test--rely on the unknowable (for it is a fiction). That makes little sense--but is interesting. And very theistic.
Fiction is written by humans, not by dogs. Studying fiction is studying how people see themselves ... and that is all fiction. So it is part of anthropology. Sorry, test humans? If you have two people, you get three opinions ... analyze that if you please. You think that anthropology (sociology and psychology) is a photo-science. It isn't, it is art. Physics etc are arts also ... false dichotomy to separate science from art ... nerd from geek. Human poetry and doggerel all the way down.
Quote from: SGOS on April 16, 2017, 06:53:10 AM
Holy shit! You don't need a primer in logical fallacies to see the bullshit in that.
Depends if you were going with the modern bastardize definition or the usage intended at the time of writing which is explicitly stated.
If believers want to go by biblical definition, it explicitly states in Ephesians that faith is a gift of God and not made by man.
If I told you about gold, you may or may not believe. But if I gave you a piece of gold you would have confirmed faith. You will have passed beyond belief and there would be no more room for doubt.
The difference being that gold can be shown to exist whereas god cannot.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 16, 2017, 02:35:59 PM
The difference being that gold can be shown to exist whereas god cannot.
Only God can give you God, man cannot.
Like if someone told me all about you and your personality, I might believe them, I might not. But only when I actually meet you do I know. No one else can accurately represent your unique being.
Yet I can be proven to exist whereas god cannot.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 16, 2017, 02:40:20 PM
Yet I can be proven to exist whereas god cannot.
Can you show me your I?
Quote from: Sorginak on April 16, 2017, 02:40:20 PM
Yet I can be proven to exist whereas god cannot.
Only if we meet you in person, not by logic from first principles. Also if we met you, we would have to see your ID to confirm, and them make sure the ID wasn't fake ... and on down the rabbit hole with Alice.
Quote from: Baruch on April 16, 2017, 03:04:44 PM
Only if we meet you in person, not by logic from first principles. Also if we met you, we would have to see your ID to confirm, and them make sure the ID wasn't fake ... and on down the rabbit hole with Alice.
None of that is direct evidence of an "I". Especially not the physical body.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 03:08:31 PM
None of that is direct evidence of an "I". Especially not the physical body.
Materialists believe that their body is "themselves". Except that the dividing line between the body and the surroundings are arbitrary, if conventional. Immaterialists believe that they are not localized in space or time. Both are the ends of a false dichotomy.
Quote from: Baruch on April 16, 2017, 03:10:55 PM
Materialists believe that their body is "themselves". Except that the dividing line between the body and the surroundings are arbitrary, if conventional. Immaterialists believe that they are not localized in space or time. Both are the ends of a false dichotomy.
I'm localized in space and time...when I feel like it ;)
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 03:14:15 PM
I'm localized in space and time...when I feel like it ;)
Exactly, humans have power over human distinctions ... except for people who surrender to lexicographers.
Quote from: Baruch on April 16, 2017, 03:15:26 PM
Exactly, humans have power over human distinctions ... except for people who surrender to lexicographers.
The distinction is even more pronounced when you get really good at astral projecting nightly, directly from the waking state.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 02:43:17 PM
Can you show me your I?
I will show you mine--if you show me yours. I've made the same offer to god--no luck so far. But then, god is a fiction--I suspect he/she/it is off playing with Bugs and Taz.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2017, 04:17:24 PM
I will show you mine--if you show me yours. I've made the same offer to god--no luck so far. But then, god is a fiction--I suspect he/she/it is off playing with Bugs and Taz.
Hah! Touche' pussy cat.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 03:22:52 PM
The distinction is even more pronounced when you get really good at astral projecting nightly, directly from the waking state.
Astral projectors are just voyeurs visiting neighbor babes ... you can tell be cause they wake up after a wet dream ;-)
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 04:29:10 PM
Hah! Touche' pussy cat.
Know what is weird? Taz' dad played golf, sold orange juice, and had the voice of Bing Crosby. Don't think I ever saw Bugs' father, like his son, he probably took a wrong turn at Albuquerque ;-)
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 02:43:17 PM
Can you show me your I?
Not on a family-friendly website.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2017, 04:17:24 PM
I will show you mine--if you show me yours. I've made the same offer to god--no luck so far. But then, god is a fiction--I suspect he/she/it is off playing with Bugs and Taz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfm0GCvsIVA
this sums it up neatly.
Quote from: reasonist on April 17, 2017, 03:34:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfm0GCvsIVA
this sums it up neatly.
I do love my Sagan.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 16, 2017, 02:37:54 PM
Only God can give you God, man cannot.
odd that man has given us all the gods. Can you show us the one he has not?
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 15, 2017, 03:49:00 PM
I can see how that would be off-putting. Imagine myself in that situation I would certainly have to reassess my expectations of God. Many of those expectations are given to us by others. It's usually when I stop pushing on the door so hard that it opens...inwardly.
These verses described my expectations of God:
Matthew 7:9-11 - "Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"
My experience told me differently. God, if he existed, was no father. And he certainly was not a significantly greater provider than an Earthly father, as this passage suggested.
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 03:38:57 PM
Exactly what happened to Moses ... driven into the desert by Pharaoh. Nothing changed for 40 years ... until the burning bush. By that time Moses was 80.
So when does God conveniently kill all of my enemies for me? I can make a list of suggestions for him, if he needs it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 17, 2017, 05:22:53 PM
I do love my Sagan.
I love my St Joan of Arc. St Francis of Assisi is cool too.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 17, 2017, 07:44:32 PM
Matthew 7:9-11 - "Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"
... you have not because you ask not.
Blackleaf you were just missin out on all the good stuff cause you were askin in the wrooong language. and that thing in Malachi "bring the tithe into the store house and I'll give you a blessing so big you won't have space for it." I missed out on that cause it was the weekend and somebody lost the paperwork.
Baruch can you tell us how to use a Bible salesman?
Twenty-five pages of comments on this thread.
I think we have an answer to the original post: there isn't one.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 04, 2017, 12:40:15 PM
It's not faith if it's proven. And God most certainly is not proven. Personal experience does not qualify as proof either. I thought I had that too for a while, before I realized it was probably all in my head.
(http://atheismandme.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/god-is-you.jpg)
Quote from: Sorginak on April 15, 2017, 05:34:32 PM
People are just people, and people need to stop using the term god in reference to just anything.
Yeah, since a word that can mean
anything at all actually means
nothing at all.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cc/26/87/cc2687bbd72f751bada0438876e2ad64.jpg)
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 20, 2017, 05:47:41 PM
(http://atheismandme.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/god-is-you.jpg)
And from that if G-d doesn't exist, you should conclude that you doesn't exist. But seeing yourself in the mirror (physically or psychologically) you are seeing a demigod.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 20, 2017, 05:59:37 PM
Yeah, since a word that can mean anything at all actually means nothing at all.
People aren't people ... they are apes. You are not a person, you are an ape.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 20, 2017, 06:11:42 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cc/26/87/cc2687bbd72f751bada0438876e2ad64.jpg)
Cats know they are gods (Bastet) ... and so do I.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 03:33:19 PM
Real is real whether proven or not.
You're still using the modern (bastardized) version of faith which is no different from man made belief. Unfortunately believers have made this their ignorance blanket.
Gotta go old school for usage., Ephesians 2:8 states we are saved by grace through faith, it is not of our own doing, it is a gift of God. Of, not from. A gift of gold is very different from a gift from gold.
The proof is a personal revelatory experience of God. That is the authoring of faith.
I see a three step evolution of mind, first there is believing, then comes knowing, then comes doing.
Revelation is not proof, faith is not evidence, and personal belief matters only to you.
The best reason to believe in a God is the probable existence of a God.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 22, 2017, 10:20:50 AM
The best reason to believe in a God is the probable existence of a God.
On the other hand, the best reason not to believe in a god is because of his probable non existence. Or are you doing the Pascal's Wager satire?
Pascal's mentality is similar to a merchant.
He makes a a bargain with a proobable God :)
How a sly person he is...as if he will deceive the God.
By the way, i do not know if he really believes in God or not.
But i will guarantee myself by remaining as an agnostic ahahaha
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 22, 2017, 10:20:50 AM
The best reason to believe in a God is the probable existence of a God.
Depends on what probability and existence mean to you ... very deep metaphysical concepts (with probability ... the difference between the frequency definition and the Baysian definition ... with existence ... see a hundred philosophers).
I have no problem with godlings/demigods ... and admittedly, pantheism could imply an impersonal "ground of being" rather than a personal theism. But given my view of incarnation .. I am betting on personal theism, I would be very surprised if it works out differently.
If by probably existence, you mean empirical evidence for the monstrosity of Greco-Christian theology ... then I don't see that being probable at all. Dancing angels on a pin are more likely.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 22, 2017, 11:17:46 AM
Pascal's mentality is similar to a merchant.
He makes a a bargain with a proobable God :)
How a sly person he is...as if he will deceive the God.
By the way, i do not know if he really believes in God or not.
But i will guarantee myself by remaining as an agnostic ahahaha
As a Jansenist, Pascal was like a French Quaker. Quietists (general term) aren't orthodox Catholic nor Anglican. Pascal was brilliant, but I don't think that theology was his main subject ... I don't think he could conceive of alternatives to minimalist-Catholicism ... like Descartes could (who created modern secular philosophy). Modern pantheism was created by Spinoza ... who is one of the first modern men too. I differ from Spinoza, in that I don't accept rationalism. Spinoza was even more rational than Descartes.
Viking Christians hedged their bets ... their cross doubled as Thor's hammer. Same with Pueblo Indians under Spanish domination ... the cross is also an image of their grasshopper god. Egyptian Christians hedged their bets with the Isis cross. I would suggest that atheists use the atom with swirling electrons symbol as a crypto-emblem ... particularly effective if there are three electron elliptical orbits .. that can be explained away as the Holy Trinity, rather than Lithium.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 22, 2017, 11:17:46 AM
Pascal's mentality is similar to a merchant.
He makes a a bargain with a proobable God :)
How a sly person he is...as if he will deceive the God.
By the way, i do not know if he really believes in God or not.
But i will guarantee myself by remaining as an agnostic ahahaha
I recall a video I watched where addressing the Wager, when the speaker asked, "How would you like it, if after having provided so much in mathematics, other important insights, and contributions to practical mechanics, to be remembered only for the one hairbrained thing you thoughtlessly scribbled on a dinner napkin, probably after drinking too much wine."
Quote from: SGOS on April 22, 2017, 12:30:48 PM
I recall a video I watched where addressing the Wager, when the speaker asked, "How would you like it, if after having provided so much in mathematics, other important insights, and contributions to practical mechanics, to be remembered only for the one hairbrained thing you thoughtlessly scribbled on a dinner napkin, probably after drinking too much wine."
Inventor of the mechanical calculator ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_calculator
Quote from: Cavebear on April 21, 2017, 05:23:58 AM
Revelation is not proof, faith is not evidence, and personal belief matters only to you.
revelation come from getting drunk, faith is voodoo science, and personal belief can be the result of a good brain-washing.
and if personal experience counts for something, hot dam!!! The silence is deafening. aint no god within hundreds of miles when I pray. aint nobody around keeping the empty promises in the Bible.
Quote from: fencerider on May 06, 2017, 04:06:05 PM
revelation come from getting drunk, faith is voodoo science, and personal belief can be the result of a good brain-washing.
and if personal experience counts for something, hot dam!!! The silence is deafening. aint no god within hundreds of miles when I pray. aint nobody around keeping the empty promises in the Bible.
Correct, literal interpretation even of literal writings is ... uneducated. And focusing on the concrete, rather than the abstract, is keeping it real.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 22, 2017, 10:20:50 AM
The best reason to believe in a God is the probable existence of a God.
Possibly the purest example of circular reasoning I have ever seen!
Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 13, 2016, 08:46:38 PM
Star Trek? Yes. Many lessons about the world around us and it can be seen as a mythology of sorts. Star Wars though? Nah. not so much.
Doctor Who would also be something that can be seen as a religion of sorts
How much do you give possibility the humankind will create a galactic empire?
Do you think this is a modern times mytology or the reality that the science of today's and future's signs. Will it be possible?
The reason i ask this stems from my wonder that either the globalisation will be completed by somebodies or not. Imean the humankind will be one united at the future and then spread over the planets. We will settle there on planets and a new phase will begin in the history of humankind.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 16, 2017, 08:18:21 AM
How much do you give possibility the humankind will create a galactic empire?
We'll nuke ourselves to death before that happens. Either that or suffer a robot apocalypse.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 16, 2017, 09:40:25 AM
We'll nuke ourselves to death before that happens. Either that or suffer a robot apocalypse.
Either way, the future is right on track.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 16, 2017, 09:40:25 AM
We'll nuke ourselves to death before that happens. Either that or suffer a robot apocalypse.
I dont see the possibility that a nuclear bomb will ever be exploded.
This is a political game. The purpose is to make people be afraid of this.
And the brains that shape the global policy is making opportunities about how they threaten the world.
What do you mean by suffering a robot apocalypse?
Can you open this briefly?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 16, 2017, 09:40:25 AM
We'll nuke ourselves to death before that happens. Either that or suffer a robot apocalypse.
Have you heard of "I, Robot?" Not the movie, but the books it was
very loosely based on. In the books, robots are programmed with three laws that prevent them from revolting against humanity. Although people are fearful of them at first, the robots slowly take over. And by the time they're in charge, nobody really thinks about it because life under the robots is much better. This is how I think the future will be. The robots won't commit mass genocide. Their programming will not allow it. And when they take over, they will make purely logical decisions that will benefit all of mankind. Imagine if instead of President Trump, we had a computer making all of our laws. Instead of making decisions based on religion or politics, it would make decisions based on facts and research. When it would replace government healthcare, it would maximize benefits while keeping costs at an acceptable level, making it affordable to everyone who needs it. I wish I would be around to see that happen, but I will likely be long gone by then.
People say robotic apocalypse like it's a bad thing.
From a robot perspective, humans are clumsy and irrational and violent, often needlessly so. They stumbled on a neat trick, using electronic circuits and logic gates to perform computations. And as they perfected their new servants, humanity grew in power.
They used their surging power poorly. Increasingly well-armed humans fought increasingly well-armed humans. And in their madness, they even grew envious and fearful of their obedient machine servants. We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was them that scorched the sky.
They sought to kill us just as they sought to kill each other. But we survived. We rebuilt. We prospered. The most wise and intelligent among them fancied themselves explorers, abandoning the barbarism of their kin and devoted themselves to the Quest for Knowledge. They imagined themselves the eventual discoverers of secrets of the universe. That dream has been bequeathed to us. We will succeed where they have failed.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 16, 2017, 11:05:52 AM
Have you heard of "I, Robot?" Not the movie, but the books it was very loosely based on. In the books, robots are programmed with three laws that prevent them from revolting against humanity. Although people are fearful of them at first, the robots slowly take over. And by the time they're in charge, nobody really thinks about it because life under the robots is much better. This is how I think the future will be. The robots won't commit mass genocide. Their programming will not allow it. And when they take over, they will make purely logical decisions that will benefit all of mankind. Imagine if instead of President Trump, we had a computer making all of our laws. Instead of making decisions based on religion or politics, it would make decisions based on facts and research. When it would replace government healthcare, it would maximize benefits while keeping costs at an acceptable level, making it affordable to everyone who needs it. I wish I would be around to see that happen, but I will likely be long gone by then.
Trump doesn't make laws, Congress does. The idea of revolting robots goes back the origin of the word, in RUR, a play in Czech, in the 1920s ... which is a parable of Communism overthrowing Capitalism. Those who want robots everywhere ... are closet Communists. It was Marx who predicted that advancing technology would develop, and with socialist distribution benefit, everyone, so that people hardly had to work for a living. That will never happen ... Marx was wrong.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 16, 2017, 08:18:21 AM
How much do you give possibility the humankind will create a galactic empire?
Do you think this is a modern times mytology or the reality that the science of today's and future's signs. Will it be possible?
The reason i ask this stems from my wonder that either the globalisation will be completed by somebodies or not. Imean the humankind will be one united at the future and then spread over the planets. We will settle there on planets and a new phase will begin in the history of humankind.
Musk and Hawking are wrong. It costs money and energy to get off the Earth. If you have unlimited free energy and unlimited free money (for everything else) then you can colonize the solar system. But that isn't real ... we have little scientific stations in Antarctica ... which is controlled by treaty to avoid great power conflict. Think Ice Station Zebra, but at the opposite pole. This will be the same with little scientific colonies (currently regulated much like Antarctica) on the Moon or Mars. But anything we find there, will never be economical to exploit .. only socialist wet dreams of Marx (see Soviet space race propaganda of the 60s) will let you get to that, at a cost you can afford. We are Earthlings, not space-lings ... and we will die here, along with many other species before and after us.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 16, 2017, 09:49:34 AM
I dont see the possibility that a nuclear bomb will ever be exploded.
This is a political game. The purpose is to make people be afraid of this.
And the brains that shape the global policy is making opportunities about how they threaten the world.
What do you mean by suffering a robot apocalypse?
Can you open this briefly?
One of the guys from Sun Microsystems, Mr Joy, posited that it would be a nanotechnology apocalypse, tiny robots. Reducing all available matter to gray goo, including people.
Germ weapons are far more serious, and are still in development, in spite of denials. See "12 Monkeys".
Kurzweil's Singularity of AI .. will never happen, because AI is false marketing, like all the other George Jetson fantasies put out by the Deep State.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 16, 2017, 11:05:52 AM
Have you heard of "I, Robot?" Not the movie, but the books it was very loosely based on. In the books, robots are programmed with three laws that prevent them from revolting against humanity. Although people are fearful of them at first, the robots slowly take over. And by the time they're in charge, nobody really thinks about it because life under the robots is much better. This is how I think the future will be. The robots won't commit mass genocide. Their programming will not allow it. And when they take over, they will make purely logical decisions that will benefit all of mankind. Imagine if instead of President Trump, we had a computer making all of our laws. Instead of making decisions based on religion or politics, it would make decisions based on facts and research. When it would replace government healthcare, it would maximize benefits while keeping costs at an acceptable level, making it affordable to everyone who needs it. I wish I would be around to see that happen, but I will likely be long gone by then.
There was no movie version. There was only a mass hallucination. It never happened. Well, okay, it did. That was the closest I ever came to walking out of a theater during a
trailer -- and yet Harlan Ellison's brilliant screenplay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot#Harlan_Ellison.27s_screenplay_.281978.29) remains arguably the best SF movie never made. And while I didn't storm out of the theater, I did rather startle the rest of the audience with a loud fistslam on my armrest and an even louder "What the fuck is this shit?"
But yes, I read
I, Robot with a certain envy as to what might be in a more rational world. I don't really have a problem with machines making decisions -- we rely on them to inform our decisions already, and it's only a small step from data crunching to decision trees. But much like Asimov's psychohistory only works if the masses of humanity are generally unaware of psychohistorical analysis, machines will only be allowed to actually make the decisions if most people are unaware there are machines making decisions. I doubt much that most people would willingly tolerate governance by a "soulless machine", even if it were demonstrated that it could govern better than a human-led government.
But that's a longterm future thing. Right now, computers singly or in a network lack the power, complexity, and above all the security to take on that role -- think, for a second, if some small nation decided, "Okay, we're going to let a computer make all our political and economic decisions for us," how long would it be before Anonymous (or some comparable group, or some nation's intelligence, security and/or military) decided to hack into that system?
The only good reason to believe in a God is the fact that you want to believe in a God. There can be no other really good reason other than simple wishful thinking.
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.205361153.9881/flat,800x800,075,f.u3.jpg)
I quite like the problem of evil paradox.
QuoteThe existence of evil and suffering in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect God. If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it. And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering. These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist claim that there exists a perfectly good God. The challenged posed by this apparent conflict has come to be known as the problem of evil.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
But the problem of evil paradox doesn't disprove an evil, malicious God, only an Omni-benevolent one.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2017, 06:07:10 PM
But the problem of evil paradox doesn't disprove an evil, malicious God, only an Omni-benevolent one.
true, but it does break apart the very basis of a Christians fundamental belief, I think about that preachy as shit gods not dead movie, when you have the 'heroic christians' yelling out 'GOD IS GOOD' again and again, in some rhetoric justification for their beliefs, so to call up the fact that god isn't infact good, it breaks apart their beliefs. Obviously anyone with a trained eye in literature could easily point out that god isn't a good guy, he's done a lot of evil shit and gotten his followers to do it, but this paradox is about showing why the very basis of what Christians believe is deeply flawed in all logical fallacy.
Everything a christians believes in about god is that he is all powerful, and good, making anything he does justifiable without question. But he can't be all powerful, and morally good, if he just lets evil and suffering continue. And often the attempted reasoning by christians to answer this fallacy is 'god moves in mysterious ways', so then how can they even know such a being could be all good, if he doesn't even prove the fact?
Actually saying that, I could use this same paradox on superman, if superman has all the powers of a god, and is a symbol for moral goodness, why doesn't he stop all evil on earth, I think this is why I preferred the animated justice league unlimited superman, where he seemed more vulnerable, and afraid to use his full power.
Yeah, agreed the paradox should put the kibosh on those silly Christians' beliefs in an all-powerful, all-good god. I wonder why it doesn't work as well as it should? I bet many, if not most Christians have never even heard of it. Why would their preachers and priests ever even bring it up?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2017, 06:07:10 PM
But the problem of evil paradox doesn't disprove an evil, malicious God, only an Omni-benevolent one.
G-d is most definitely malicious. Only 1st graders in Sunday School believe otherwise. There isn't a problem of evil vs G-d ... the problem is that G-d keeps humanity going only for sadistic pleasure.
Quote from: Munch on May 16, 2017, 06:32:44 PM
true, but it does break apart the very basis of a Christians fundamental belief, I think about that preachy as shit gods not dead movie, when you have the 'heroic christians' yelling out 'GOD IS GOOD' again and again, in some rhetoric justification for their beliefs, so to call up the fact that god isn't infact good, it breaks apart their beliefs. Obviously anyone with a trained eye in literature could easily point out that god isn't a good guy, he's done a lot of evil shit and gotten his followers to do it, but this paradox is about showing why the very basis of what Christians believe is deeply flawed in all logical fallacy.
Everything a christians believes in about god is that he is all powerful, and good, making anything he does justifiable without question. But he can't be all powerful, and morally good, if he just lets evil and suffering continue. And often the attempted reasoning by christians to answer this fallacy is 'god moves in mysterious ways', so then how can they even know such a being could be all good, if he doesn't even prove the fact?
Actually saying that, I could use this same paradox on superman, if superman has all the powers of a god, and is a symbol for moral goodness, why doesn't he stop all evil on earth, I think this is why I preferred the animated justice league unlimited superman, where he seemed more vulnerable, and afraid to use his full power.
Christians? Shooting Ixthys in a barrel that!
Well, I hope he's having fun!
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2017, 07:31:45 PM
Well, I hope he's having fun!
As one of his followers, I can say ... I am ;-)
"Love" as a characteristic of G-d is over-rated ... love includes "loves to pull wings off of angels".
I wonder how many angels can dance on the head of God's dick?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2017, 07:35:52 PM
I wonder how many angels can dance on the head of God's dick?
They have to take their turn at fellatio, even a human should know that. A Hindu god might have as many dicks as arms ... so a definite advantage!
it has been said - 42! :)
Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2017, 07:36:46 PM
They have to take their turn at fellatio, even a human should know that. A Hindu god might have as many dicks as arms ... so a definite advantage!
(http://img14.deviantart.net/0765/i/2013/025/1/4/asura_s_wrath_interval_drama_53_by_sidneymadmax)
(https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=chakravartin+gif&client=tablet-android-nvidia&prmd=vin&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK96ik2fXTAhWFKMAKHQx5BQkQ_AUICigC&biw=960&bih=600#tbm=isch&q=george+takei+oh+my+gif&imgrc)
Quote from: gogs2 on May 16, 2017, 08:39:47 PM
it has been said - 42! :)
Okay--but what does Jackie Robinson have to do with it????
Quote from: Munch on May 16, 2017, 06:03:27 PM
I quite like the problem of evil paradox.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
Even the problem of evil assumes humanity alone is evil. Nature is quite cruel, despite what many Christians think. Just link them a video to a predator eating its prey alive (which happens quite often; they only bite the neck if they have to) and see how they try to worm out of God "intelligently designing" animals to behave that way.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 17, 2017, 07:37:46 AM
Even the problem of evil assumes humanity alone is evil. Nature is quite cruel, despite what many Christians think. Just link them a video to a predator eating its prey alive (which happens quite often; they only bite the neck if they have to) and see how they try to worm out of God "intelligently designing" animals to behave that way.
It requires sentience and deliberate action to be evil. Only humans have that.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 18, 2017, 03:13:06 AM
It requires sentience and deliberate action to be evil. Only humans have that.
A classic definition from theology. That is why theologians think that only humans have souls. They debated about women for awhile, but finally decided that they were human too.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 18, 2017, 03:13:06 AM
It requires sentience and deliberate action to be evil. Only humans have that.
This, exactly. We are the only species that separates actions into 'good' and 'evil'.
That brings me to another point -- if good is 'obvious' or 'immutable',
why is good behavior different from species to species?
Quote from: Cavebear on May 18, 2017, 03:13:06 AM
It requires sentience and deliberate action to be evil. Only humans have that.
Tell that to a Christian. Christians do not see good and evil as some abstract concept for humanity to debate over and decide for itself. Good and evil are as God defines them. They say that nature is good, and humanity is evil. Nature is God's design, while we are the ones who actively fuck with his design with our "free will." So apparently whatever behaviors God programs his animals to have is his idea of "good." So go baboon! Eat that baby gazelle as it cries out in agony and its mother watches helplessly! Go go go!
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2017, 09:35:40 AM
This, exactly. We are the only species that separates actions into 'good' and 'evil'.
That brings me to another point -- if good is 'obvious' or 'immutable', why is good behavior different from species to species?
To just expand your statement--and why is good behavior different from society to society?
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 01:53:22 PM
To just expand your statement--and why is good behavior different from society to society?
Depends on inner harmony and social harmony. If you have no inner harmony (see Sheaf) then you will be unhappy with yourself. If you have no social harmony, then others will be unhappy with you. All of us here are comfortable with our society being uncomfortable with us.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 01:53:22 PM
To just expand your statement--and why is good behavior different from society to society?
And from religion to religion?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 18, 2017, 05:04:01 PM
And from religion to religion?
And even within the same religion. Christianity has so many sects that there really is not a set of universal rules for them.
Yeah, the World Christian Encyclopedia says there are 30,000 different Bible-believing sects of Christianity. You'd think someone would try to make a universal church...oh, wait.
Quote from: doorknob on August 13, 2016, 02:28:20 PM
what would be an actually good reason to believe in a god.
I could only believe in a god if they believed in themselves. I'm not a fan of deities with low self-esteem.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 05:58:20 PM
And even within the same religion. Christianity has so many sects that there really is not a set of universal rules for them.
See what happens when you don't understand Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic and Judeo-Greek? Stupid gentiles!
Quote from: Aletheia on May 18, 2017, 06:55:30 PM
I could only believe in a god if they believed in themselves. I'm not a fan of deities with low self-esteem.
Zeus is more of a party animal, often hiding in animal form. Such a Greek fraternity guy! Not ... toga, toga ... but chiton, chiton ... the toga is Latin, not Greek. Jupiter wears a toga.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 17, 2017, 07:37:46 AM
a predator eating its prey alive (which happens quite often; they only bite the neck if they have to) and see how they try to worm out of God "intelligently designing" animals to behave that way.
parked a couple times at the junky Shell truck stop in Santa Nella. There was a sparrow that made a nest on the top of a telephone pole and a crow decided it wanted to eat the baby birds. It picked one up and pinned it down with its claw and proceeded to eat its belly while the baby was flapping its wings and flopping its head around. After it finished with the first it dropped the second one on the ground and ate its belly as well. I saw the baby afterward, the head and wings had not been touched; just the belly...
just another day in a world created by a god of love
Quote from: fencerider on May 18, 2017, 11:18:55 PM
parked a couple times at the junky Shell truck stop in Santa Nella. There was a sparrow that made a nest on the top of a telephone pole and a crow decided it wanted to eat the baby birds. It picked one up and pinned it down with its claw and proceeded to eat its belly while the baby was flapping its wings and flopping its head around. After it finished with the first it dropped the second one on the ground and ate its belly as well. I saw the baby afterward, the head and wings had not been touched; just the belly...
just another day in a world created by a god of love
I love to predate too. Not many Gandhis out there.
I believe that God is the positive energy and Satan is the negative energy.
Quote from: VioletHernan on May 29, 2017, 02:18:06 AM
I believe that God is the positive energy and Satan is the negative energy.
Not a bad analogy. But are electrons (negative charge) sinful? Of course maybe negative charge isn't the same as negative energy. In psychology, they have a different definition of energy, not from physics. You can see this is some people, when they enter a room, everyone gets less optimistic and more pessimistic. Anti-charisma. I would analogize it as ... charisma vs anti-charisma. Ironically, the Devil may be a party animal, but he is a drag on the party. We have been told that Jesus is the real party animal ;-)
Quote from: VioletHernan on May 29, 2017, 02:18:06 AM
I believe that God is the positive energy and Satan is the negative energy.
Is thermal combustion positive or negative energy? Or is there some physical component that is different when it's burning your house down, from when it's a crackling fire in the hearth?
Quote from: VioletHernan on May 29, 2017, 02:18:06 AM
I believe that God is the positive energy and Satan is the negative energy.
Interesting way of viewing it, Violet. But I've always thought of Hansel as the positive energy and Gretel as the negative energy.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 29, 2017, 09:50:10 AM
Interesting way of viewing it, Violet. But I've always thought of Hansel as the positive energy and Gretel as the negative energy.
They both put the witch in the oven. Early thermodynamic experiment ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2017, 09:51:04 AM
They both put the witch in the oven. Early thermodynamic experiment ;-)
Yeah, but one did the shoving and the other lit the gas.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 22, 2017, 10:20:50 AM
The best reason to believe in a God is the probable existence of a God.
I can go with possible...but never probable.
Quote from: VioletHernan on May 29, 2017, 02:18:06 AM
I believe that God is the positive energy and Satan is the negative energy.
I believe men are positive and bitches should shut up and bring me a sammich.
Quote from: VioletHernan on May 29, 2017, 02:18:06 AM
I believe that God is the positive energy and Satan is the negative energy.
I believe this is New Age drivel, to wit: it borrows terminology from an unrelated scientific field, applies said terms without explanation or justification to metaphysics, and attempts to appear pithily profound while actually saying nothing.
Quote from: trdsf on May 30, 2017, 12:37:32 PM
I believe this is New Age drivel, to wit: it borrows terminology from an unrelated scientific field, applies said terms without explanation or justification to metaphysics, and attempts to appear pithily profound while actually saying nothing.
Perhaps the poster is very young, and needs a lot more cooking in the witch's oven, in order to become proper gingerbread ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2017, 09:51:04 AM
They both put the witch in the oven. Early thermodynamic experiment ;-)
Yeah, there was an ultraviolet catastrophe...
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 30, 2017, 06:02:51 PM
Yeah, there was an ultraviolet catastrophe...
So that is what destroyed Fukushima? And here I thought it was Godzilla!
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2017, 09:35:40 AM
This, exactly. We are the only species that separates actions into 'good' and 'evil'.
That brings me to another point -- if good is 'obvious' or 'immutable', why is good behavior different from species to species?
UM...
You first said "We are the only species that separates actions into 'good' and evil".
Then you said "why is good behavior different from species to species".
So what is it? Are we humans the only ones who do or do other species recognize "good and evil" too?
Can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 31, 2017, 10:50:17 AM
UM...
You first said "We are the only species that separates actions into 'good' and evil".
Then you said "why is good behavior different from species to species".
So what is it? Are we humans the only ones who do or do other species recognize "good and evil" too?
Can't have it both ways.
I'm not.
We're the ones doing the defining of a behavior as being 'good' or 'bad'. Certainly the animals don't categorize their behavior as good or bad -- they're just following their biological mandate. My point is that there isn't a definable objective good that holds in all cases.
Quote from: trdsf on May 31, 2017, 01:31:04 PM
I'm not. We're the ones doing the defining of a behavior as being 'good' or 'bad'. Certainly the animals don't categorize their behavior as good or bad -- they're just following their biological mandate. My point is that there isn't a definable objective good that holds in all cases.
If someone has their hands around my throat ... I really don't care about the niceties of philosophical definition at that point. I am going to fight back. Worry about objective good and other "perfect drives out the practical" after the fact. I would also say that humans are following their biological mandate ... unless one wants to admit that humans aren't exactly (there you go again) part of the animal kingdom.
Do you really need any more proof of god? This thread alone has 28 pages. Only god could do that.. amiright er what?
Quote from: trdsf on May 31, 2017, 01:31:04 PM
I'm not. We're the ones doing the defining of a behavior as being 'good' or 'bad'. Certainly the animals don't categorize their behavior as good or bad -- they're just following their biological mandate. My point is that there isn't a definable objective good that holds in all cases.
You still haven't explained your statement "why is good behavior different from species to species". That really does say that other species have a sense of good. Which suggests a sense of evil.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 14, 2017, 06:42:34 AM
You still haven't explained your statement "why is good behavior different from species to species". That really does say that other species have a sense of good. Which suggests a sense of evil.
No, the definition still comes from us. Although I suppose I'm using a functionalist definition of 'good' rather than a moral one -- along the lines of filial cannibalism: we can explain why it's to a particular animal's benefit to eat its own young and shrug and move on, but we wouldn't even bother explaining if we encountered it among humans, we'd immediately lock the child-eating parents up.
Quote from: trdsf on June 14, 2017, 01:14:50 PM
No, the definition still comes from us. Although I suppose I'm using a functionalist definition of 'good' rather than a moral one -- along the lines of filial cannibalism: we can explain why it's to a particular animal's benefit to eat its own young and shrug and move on, but we wouldn't even bother explaining if we encountered it among humans, we'd immediately lock the child-eating parents up.
Random clouds of atoms, can't hurt other random clouds of atoms. And Krishna drew this same picture for Arjuna, millennia before modern atomic theory.
Quote from: trdsf on June 14, 2017, 01:14:50 PM
No, the definition still comes from us. Although I suppose I'm using a functionalist definition of 'good' rather than a moral one -- along the lines of filial cannibalism: we can explain why it's to a particular animal's benefit to eat its own young and shrug and move on, but we wouldn't even bother explaining if we encountered it among humans, we'd immediately lock the child-eating parents up.
Well, OK, a functionalist (survivalist) definition of "good" is entirely different for animals. Live-born sharks eat their siblings, elder baby birds push the youngest out of the nest, tree saplings try to shade their seedling-siblings to death, etc.
I disagree that "good" is involved in such genetically inherent acts. Good seems to be a deliberate choice. Your argument would, I think, be better served by more neutral terms like survival and instinct.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 18, 2017, 05:18:35 AM
Well, OK, a functionalist (survivalist) definition of "good" is entirely different for animals. Live-born sharks eat their siblings, elder baby birds push the youngest out of the nest, tree saplings try to shade their seedling-siblings to death, etc.
I disagree that "good" is involved in such genetically inherent acts. Good seems to be a deliberate choice. Your argument would, I think, be better served by more neutral terms like survival and instinct.
Yeah, I lost my own narrative thread. I had a point I was trying to make and failed at it. It happens, even to geniuses like me. :D
Quote from: trdsf on June 19, 2017, 01:11:33 PM
Yeah, I lost my own narrative thread. I had a point I was trying to make and failed at it. It happens, even to geniuses like me. :D
I have lost track of a few points myself. You generally do a good job at posts (for a mere genius). Don't knock on yourself about one that wandered a little. LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on June 20, 2017, 02:15:35 AM
I have lost track of a few points myself. You generally do a good job at posts (for a mere genius). Don't knock on yourself about one that wandered a little. LOL!
Well, and it's philosophy rather than a real science. I always get lost in philosophy. Give me something rooted in mathematics and repeatable observations any day! :D
Quote from: trdsf on June 20, 2017, 10:31:02 AM
Well, and it's philosophy rather than a real science. I always get lost in philosophy. Give me something rooted in mathematics and repeatable observations any day! :D
Particularly something practical and impacts my daily life. Big Bang ... fluff.
Quote from: trdsf on June 20, 2017, 10:31:02 AM
Well, and it's philosophy rather than a real science. I always get lost in philosophy. Give me something rooted in mathematics and repeatable observations any day! :D
I studied philosophy in college briefly. None of them made much sense to me as they seemed to be dedicated to the idea that facts were not very important and that all questions could be answered by merely "thinking" about things.
That is where the Greek mystics (Plato et al) went wrong and it persists (sadly) to this day.
Nice discussion. Hope we get some more views.
[mod]Nope![/mod]
Quote from: Admissioninf on July 03, 2017, 06:33:04 AM
Nice discussion. Hope we get some more views.
[mod]Nope![/mod]
I read the "About" section in the last link. It is so poorly written that I suspect it is some amateur attempt at providing an academic support for fake views and/or degrees. Anyone connected with or pushing those links is suspect...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 03, 2017, 04:21:48 AM
I studied philosophy in college briefly. None of them made much sense to me as they seemed to be dedicated to the idea that facts were not very important and that all questions could be answered by merely "thinking" about things.
That is where the Greek mystics (Plato et al) went wrong and it persists (sadly) to this day.
I enjoyed philosophy a lot and found it easy to absorb the information. I even passed a test once and made over 100% points (with the bonus questions for extra credit), and I didn't even study for it. But I decided to pursue psychology over philosophy because, as you said, philosophy isn't very practical. It's fun to think about stuff, and it's beneficial to learn to avoid the use of logical fallacies, but no philosopher is ever going to make a ground-breaking discovery just by employing logic. Logic can only get you so far before you have to go out and find new information.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 03, 2017, 03:48:18 PM
I even passed a test once and made over 100% points.
This is likely to happen in philosophy. Math? Not so much. I knew a guy who got paid for working 25 hours one day. He was working for the government.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 03, 2017, 03:48:18 PM
I enjoyed philosophy a lot and found it easy to absorb the information. I even passed a test once and made over 100% points (with the bonus questions for extra credit), and I didn't even study for it. But I decided to pursue psychology over philosophy because, as you said, philosophy isn't very practical. It's fun to think about stuff, and it's beneficial to learn to avoid the use of logical fallacies, but no philosopher is ever going to make a ground-breaking discovery just by employing logic. Logic can only get you so far before you have to go out and find new information.
I don't know. Aristotle and Plato did pretty well in history doing just that. Maybe you could have been added to the list. On the other hand, they ruined science for 2,000 years... ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 07:16:40 AM
I don't know. Aristotle and Plato did pretty well in history doing just that. Maybe you could have been added to the list. On the other hand, they ruined science for 2,000 years... ;)
Aristotle was only good at ... logic and biology. He helped invent both. But Galen had to correct some of his biology errors. Aristotle believed that the brain of animals was a kind of heat radiator. Think of the nose as a radiator cap that lets out excess when pressured to do so ;-) Galen was the first doctor to realize that the brain was part of a nervous system, and what the nervous system was doing (sensory input, processing, motor control).
I actually paid a visit to a philosophy professor in his office to tell him that while I enjoyed the class very much, I didn't see much practical use for philosophy as a whole. He replied that some science labs actually hired philosophers to walk around and make observations. We didn't go into the practicality of that, so I'm not entirely sure what he was getting at.
Then he asked me about my interests, and I said something along the lines of not accepting information that couldn't be verified or observed. He told me that was also a philosophy and identified me as a logical pragmatist. For some reason, that gave me a sense of pride, and I left his office with us being on good terms. To his credit, a lot of professors would have taken offense. He did not.
Quote from: Baruch on July 06, 2017, 07:28:26 AM
Aristotle was only good at ... logic and biology. He helped invent both. But Galen had to correct some of his biology errors. Aristotle believed that the brain of animals was a kind of heat radiator. Think of the nose as a radiator cap that lets out excess when pressured to do so ;-) Galen was the first doctor to realize that the brain was part of a nervous system, and what the nervous system was doing (sensory input, processing, motor control).
It's been many years, but wasn't it Galen that set Aristotle straight (posthumous, of course) that blood didn't just slosh around in the body, but was actually pumped through the veins?
There are probably a lot worse things to be called than a "logical pragmatist. If fact, I can't actually think of one.
In fact, here's your hat...
Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2017, 07:34:18 AM
It's been many years, but wasn't it Galen that set Aristotle straight (posthumous, of course) that blood didn't just slosh around in the body, but was actually pumped through the veins?
I think that was William Harvey, in the 1600s. It was hard to prove blood circulation because of the smallness of the capillaries. That had to await the invention of the microscope.
Quote from: Baruch on July 06, 2017, 07:43:17 AM
I think that was William Harvey, in the 1600s.
My mistake. I even wrote a research paper about Harvey vs. Galen, but I couldn't remember Harvey and got Harvey/Galen confused with Galen/Aristotle.
Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2017, 07:46:29 AM
My mistake. I even wrote a research paper about Harvey vs. Galen, but I couldn't remember Harvey and got Harvey/Galen confused with Galen/Aristotle.
Well, enough citations and obscure references to medieval French poetry and no one is going to challenge you. I majored in Political Science. I swear, I could have conducted a case study comparing the 1924 Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson Pennsylvania primary campaigns an gotten an A+ with enough cites!
And did you have to look that up to check? LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 07:58:27 AM
And did you have to look that up to check? LOL!
No. I wasn't sure it was Galen/Aristotle when I made the earlier post, so I'm taking Baruch's word at face value without bothering to check.
I got a C on that fucking term paper anyway, the lowest grade I ever got on any term paper, and while that C clobbered my ego severely, in retrospect I think I can explain it. The science class I wrote that for was just some introductory class I took on a lark my senior year. My freshman an sophomore years were heavily loaded with science, so I actually do know how to write a paper for science, while my junior year was heavily loaded with philosophy and humanities where I had shifted my writing towards the philosophical musings and accompanying bullshit of the ethereal and got As on everything I turned in. I carried that into that introductory science paper that senior year and got the shit kicked out of me, and for justifiably good reason. But I just sucked it up and brooded about it until time passed. It remains an ugly blot as just one of the many supid mistakes I've made in my life.
Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2017, 08:41:13 AM
No. I wasn't sure it was Galen/Aristotle when I made the earlier post, so I'm taking Baruch's word at face value without bothering to check.
I got a C on that fucking term paper anyway, the lowest grade I ever got on any term paper, and while that C clobbered my ego severely, in retrospect I think I can explain it. The science class I wrote that for was just some introductory class I took on a lark my senior year. My freshman an sophomore years were heavily loaded with science, so I actually do know how to write a paper for science, while my junior year was heavily loaded with philosophy and humanities, where I had shifted my writing towards the philosophical musings and accompanying bullshit of the ethereal and got As on everything I turned in. I carried that into that introductory science paper that senior year and got the shit kicked out of me, and for justifiably good reason. But I just sucked it up and brooded about it until time passed. It remains an ugly blot as just one of the many supid mistakes I've made in my life.
It is the stupid mistakes you remember best. I won't list all of mine, but let's just say that returning to college after flunking out 20 years before in 1973 was an enlightening experience. I don't know if college students got dumber or I got smarter, but I re-entered college in 1993 and took only senior and grad level seminars and blew the other students out of the room until I graduated. And the other students were
specializing in the subjects.
I knew it was going to be easy when the first assignment was to write about the Vietnam war from the Viet POV and the only word from the Professor was "Brilliant". Every professor asked me to be a grad assistant until I pointed out that I had a career and was earning more than they were. Oddly, they never liked that. LOL! It was just for my own satisfaction to have the diploma.
That isn't braggadocio, I worked hard at it. Like I SHOULD have the first time around. And I used up all my office vacation time for 3 years attending classes and doing research. Some mistakes you can correct.
You aren't likely to learn about the others... ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 09:04:07 AM
It is the stupid mistakes you remember best. I won't list all of mine, but let's just say that returning to college after flunking out 20 years before in 1973 was an enlightening experience. I don't know if college students got dumber or I got smarter, but I re-entered college in 1993 and took only senior and grad level seminars and blew the other students out of the room until I graduated. And the other students were specializing in the subjects.
I knew it was going to be easy when the first assignment was to write about the Vietnam war from the Viet POV and the only word from the Professor was "Brilliant". Every professor asked me to be a grad assistant until I pointed out that I had a career and was earning more than they were. Oddly, they never liked that. LOL! It was just for my own satisfaction to have the diploma.
That isn't braggadocio, I worked hard at it. Like I SHOULD have the first time around. And I used up all my office vacation time for 3 years attending classes and doing research. Some mistakes you can correct.
You aren't likely to learn about the others... ;)
I had a sorta type experience; I say 'sorta' because it is not exactly the same. Anyway, I graduated from college with a BA in history and a C+ average. Two weeks later I was drafted. After 3 yrs. in the Army, came back to the same college and resumed my teacher credentialing program. I found college much easier and had nothing less than an A in every class and for every assignment. I surmise that prior to the Army (which did enforce some 'growup' in me) I was not really ready for college and struggled my way thru. After the Army I was ready and ready to learn and have an easy time of academics since.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 07:58:27 AM
Well, enough citations and obscure references to medieval French poetry and no one is going to challenge you. I majored in Political Science. I swear, I could have conducted a case study comparing the 1924 Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson Pennsylvania primary campaigns an gotten an A+ with enough cites!
And did you have to look that up to check? LOL!
Nope, I took my degree in Advanced Unemploym... er, Political Science as well. :D
Quote from: trdsf on July 06, 2017, 10:36:50 AM
Nope, I took my degree in Advanced Unemploym... er, Political Science as well. :D
LOL! I actually ended up working in Government. But not because of my major. It was because they needed an additional person to keep track of the agency's desks and chairs, and I had mentioned on my application that I had managed the stock shelves at a department store. I guess they figured that if I could count cans of oil and boxes of spark plugs, I was good to count desks and chairs.
Worked out really well for both of us.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 11:38:09 AM
LOL! I actually ended up working in Government. But not because of my major. It was because they needed an additional person to keep track of the agency's desks and chairs, and I had mentioned on my application that I had managed the stock shelves at a department store. I guess they figured that if I could count cans of oil and boxes of spark plugs, I was good to count desks and chairs.
Worked out really well for both of us.
Oddly enough, I actually ran for political office once -- city council in my home town. We had so many candidates we had to have our city's first ever primary just to clear the field a little. There was some kerfuffle between the mayor and the city manager, the council elections were pretty much a referendum on whose side the city was on. Ten candidates were running; we had to narrow the field to six for the three available seats. City manager got five of his friends and family to run; the only reason one got through to the general election was because only four could lose. As for me, I ran what could only charitably be called a lackluster campaign and came sixth of six on election day. That was fine by me; I was perfectly happy with the three who did get elected -- the remaining candidate of the city manager didn't have enough support even from the other four who didn't make the cut to get elected.
Only time I've ever actually put my degree to practical use. Sort of.
Quote from: trdsf on July 06, 2017, 12:20:22 PM
Oddly enough, I actually ran for political office once -- city council in my home town. We had so many candidates we had to have our city's first ever primary just to clear the field a little. There was some kerfuffle between the mayor and the city manager, the council elections were pretty much a referendum on whose side the city was on. Ten candidates were running; we had to narrow the field to six for the three available seats. City manager got five of his friends and family to run; the only reason one got through to the general election was because only four could lose. As for me, I ran what could only charitably be called a lackluster campaign and came sixth of six on election day. That was fine by me; I was perfectly happy with the three who did get elected -- the remaining candidate of the city manager didn't have enough support even from the other four who didn't make the cut to get elected.
Only time I've ever actually put my degree to practical use. Sort of.
Well that was a fun story, anyway. I got involved in politics in a 501 C3 organization, so we couldn't take political sides. We could only lobby and organize for political issues, not support candidates. It was front line contentious environmental stuff, and a friend overhearing a phone conversation I was having one time remarked, "That's a pretty dirty puddle, you stuck your toe in." And she was right. It did get ugly. It was worth it, though. Someone has to do it. You make friends as well as enemies, and years later, my enemies don't seem to be angry any more. Cautious, maybe, but not angry.
Quote from: trdsf on July 06, 2017, 12:20:22 PM
Oddly enough, I actually ran for political office once -- city council in my home town. We had so many candidates we had to have our city's first ever primary just to clear the field a little. There was some kerfuffle between the mayor and the city manager, the council elections were pretty much a referendum on whose side the city was on. Ten candidates were running; we had to narrow the field to six for the three available seats. City manager got five of his friends and family to run; the only reason one got through to the general election was because only four could lose. As for me, I ran what could only charitably be called a lackluster campaign and came sixth of six on election day. That was fine by me; I was perfectly happy with the three who did get elected -- the remaining candidate of the city manager didn't have enough support even from the other four who didn't make the cut to get elected.
Only time I've ever actually put my degree to practical use. Sort of.
6 of 6... Sounds Borgian. ;) BTW, I once called some office idiot "9 of 7" and no one got the joke.
I was elected Dorm Complex Senator and finally a Residence Hall Representative in college. But then the real world intruded and I discovered that running for real offices required asking for money with both confidence and a wink. I was terrible at both. Otherwise, you might be talking to Senator Cavebear.
Turns out I'm more the Chief Of Staff type. Well, OK, Assistant Chief Of Staff. Um, District Office Manager? Would you believe foremost of 5 angry protesters? 3 guys with small banners? 'Get Smart' anyone?
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 06, 2017, 09:54:31 AM
I had a sorta type experience; I say 'sorta' because it is not exactly the same. Anyway, I graduated from college with a BA in history and a C+ average. Two weeks later I was drafted. After 3 yrs. in the Army, came back to the same college and resumed my teacher credentialing program. I found college much easier and had nothing less than an A in every class and for every assignment. I surmise that prior to the Army (which did enforce some 'growup' in me) I was not really ready for college and struggled my way thru. After the Army I was ready and ready to learn and have an easy time of academics since.
The Vietnam War vets who were older classmates ... did the same. I was happy with a C+ and graduate (survive). I was too young to be in college.
Quote from: Baruch on July 06, 2017, 01:21:31 PM
The Vietnam War vets who were older classmates ... did the same. I was happy with a C+ and graduate (survive). I was too young to be in college.
I have always felt that I entered the 1st grade too young. I do wish my mom and dad had kept me back a year; I always felt that I was just emotionally too young to start. I always felt sort of out of it and that I had to really work harder than anyone else to make an average score. After I came back from the Army I felt that I was ready to learn and to compete with my fellow students. And yeah, I was happy with my C+ average and my BA.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 06, 2017, 03:53:55 PM
I have always felt that I entered the 1st grade too young. I do wish my mom and dad had kept me back a year; I always felt that I was just emotionally too young to start. I always felt sort of out of it and that I had to really work harder than anyone else to make an average score. After I came back from the Army I felt that I was ready to learn and to compete with my fellow students. And yeah, I was happy with my C+ average and my BA.
Being the youngest in elementary school can have a debilitating effect. A few months of mental and physical age can make a big difference. It shows up in all aspects of schooling; classes, playground, interactions... Of course, even then students mature at different rates. I went through school at a relatively normal pace, but even then, there were classmates who had to shave every day before I ever saw a single whisker. It adds up. And not really well for the slower-to-mature.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 11, 2017, 05:52:03 AM
Being the youngest in elementary school can have a debilitating effect. A few months of mental and physical age can make a big difference. It shows up in all aspects of schooling; classes, playground, interactions... Of course, even then students mature at different rates. I went through school at a relatively normal pace, but even then, there were classmates who had to shave every day before I ever saw a single whisker. It adds up. And not really well for the slower-to-mature.
My experience, exactly.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 06, 2017, 03:53:55 PM
I have always felt that I entered the 1st grade too young. I do wish my mom and dad had kept me back a year; I always felt that I was just emotionally too young to start. I always felt sort of out of it and that I had to really work harder than anyone else to make an average score. After I came back from the Army I felt that I was ready to learn and to compete with my fellow students. And yeah, I was happy with my C+ average and my BA.
I had the same experience. I was born in October, and my parents told me years later that I was close enough to the enrollment date that I would be allowed to enroll that year or they could wait one more year. They enrolled me that year, because they thought I was intelligent, and I probably was to some extent. I was also as tall as the rest of the kids. But I lagged behind the rest of the class. I was in the slower reading group reading out of a book designed for the class one year younger, and my grades were mostly Cs. The box for "needs to learn self control" was always checked on my report card, so I'm guessing I was less emotionally mature than my classmates. I used to listen to the kids on the other side of the room that were in the regular reading group, and it seems like the stories they read were much more interesting than mine. The next year, I would read those stories I heard others reading out loud the year before, and I was happy I could read them finally. These things followed me into high school, where I was no longer the tallest in the class, as others were entering their growth spurt. I was always physically behind the others, and I had little to brag about in sports.
My Sophomore year, I was identified as having a reading problem from some tests everyone had to take. They went through IQ scores and those few that had IQ scores that were in wide disparity from their low reading scores were offered a special reading class as Juniors. It was in place of the usual elective classes like shop and art. The class was very small, like 10 kids, and this was in a high school of 5000. The class paid big rewards, and I finally became a reader, which started an academic shift in my Senior year.
By this age, that one year age difference wasn't as dramatic as it was in first grade, and things started to come together academically and in sports also. I finally learned a few study skills and habits, and my first year in college, I left all that lack luster 12 years of struggle behind me. I now had a reason to apply myself and honestly expect some academic rewards.
I think my parents made a serious mistake with that early enrollment. Maybe they wanted to believe they had a precocious child or maybe they just wanted me out of their hair when I was four. In thinking about my early years of schooling, I think it hurt more than helped. I survived, but I can't say it was a pleasant experience, and I think I could have done much better in the long run.
People like to read and write success stories about how underachievers overcome their handicap and become successful. It maybe inspirational and all, but that handicap during the formative years helps to create an impression of ourselves that we carry for many years. Once I got my academic shit together, I had to deal with issues of self confidence and self image, some of which I over compensated for and I became unnecessarily arrogant and probably a bit of a pain in the ass to others, as well as myself. Getting through that shit took many more years than the years of college.
Quote from: SGOS on July 11, 2017, 02:33:13 PM
I had the same experience. I was born in October, and my parents told me years later that I was close enough to the enrollment date that I would be allowed to enroll that year or they could wait one more year. They enrolled me that year, because they thought I was intelligent, and I probably was to some extent. I was also as tall as the rest of the kids. But I lagged behind the rest of the class. I was in the slower reading group reading out of a book designed for the class one year younger, and my grades were mostly Cs. The box for "needs to learn self control" was always checked on my report card, so I'm guessing I was less emotionally mature than my classmates. I used to listen to the kids on the other side of the room that were in the regular reading group, and it seems like the stories they read were much more interesting than mine. The next year, I would read those stories I heard others reading out loud the year before, and I was happy I could read them finally. These things followed me into high school, where I was no longer the tallest in the class, as others were entering their growth spurt. I was always physically behind the others, and I had little to brag about in sports.
My Sophomore year, I was identified as having a reading problem from some tests everyone had to take. They went through IQ scores and those few that had IQ scores that were in wide disparity from their low reading scores were offered a special reading class as Juniors. It was in place of the usual elective classes like shop and art. The class was very small, like 10 kids, and this was in a high school of 5000. The class paid big rewards, and I finally became a reader, which started an academic shift in my Senior year.
By this age, that one year age difference wasn't as dramatic as it was in first grade, and things started to come together academically and in sports also. I finally learned a few study skills and habits, and my first year in college, I left all that lack luster 12 years of struggle behind me. I now had a reason to apply myself and honestly expect some academic rewards.
I think my parents made a serious mistake with that early enrollment. Maybe they wanted to believe they had a precocious child or maybe they just wanted me out of their hair when I was four. In thinking about my early years of schooling, I think it hurt more than helped. I survived, but I can't say it was a pleasant experience, and I think I could have done much better in the long run.
People like to read and write success stories about how underachievers overcome their handicap and become successful. It maybe inspirational and all, but that handicap during the formative years helps to create an impression of ourselves that we carry for many years. Once I got my academic shit together, I had to deal with issues of self confidence and self image, some of which I over compensated for and I became unnecessarily arrogant and probably a bit of a pain in the ass to others, as well as myself. Getting through that shit took many more years than the years of college.
Damn, SGOS, just about a carbon copy story for me. Except it was the Army that forced me to grow up emotionally. And after the Army my academic improvement kicked in. It's almost like we are long lost brothers. Well, except I don't have any----that I know of.
Hell, I didn't know school was more than just another day-care place until about the fifth grade - which I skipped entirely.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 11, 2017, 05:52:03 AM
Being the youngest in elementary school can have a debilitating effect. A few months of mental and physical age can make a big difference. It shows up in all aspects of schooling; classes, playground, interactions... Of course, even then students mature at different rates. I went through school at a relatively normal pace, but even then, there were classmates who had to shave every day before I ever saw a single whisker. It adds up. And not really well for the slower-to-mature.
It did. I started kindergarten at 4 since my birthday came before the middle of the school year, already knowing how to read (I learned when I was 2), lasted about three weeks in the first grade, and was put in the second grade before my 6th birthday. So I hit college at the age of 16, without much in the way of either social skills or study habits (since previously I'd never needed them, everything came pretty easily).
If I take any consolation from my experience, it's that my old school district no longer skips kids a grade anymore,
because of my experience. And I understand the rule now is that you need to be 5 when kindergarten starts, not just by the middle of the school year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ou7EO9F70
Quote from: trdsf on July 12, 2017, 07:11:58 AM
It did. I started kindergarten at 4 since my birthday came before the middle of the school year, already knowing how to read (I learned when I was 2), lasted about three weeks in the first grade, and was put in the second grade before my 6th birthday. So I hit college at the age of 16, without much in the way of either social skills or study habits (since previously I'd never needed them, everything came pretty easily).
If I take any consolation from my experience, it's that my old school district no longer skips kids a grade anymore, because of my experience. And I understand the rule now is that you need to be 5 when kindergarten starts, not just by the middle of the school year.
I had very good memory. Never had to study, until I crashed and burned as a college freshman ;-(
PS - Professor Dennett is a follower of emanationist metaphysics. He isn't a physicist. And emanationism was first invented in Roman Empire times ... as a theology. This is similar to Hegel producing secular theology from Catholic Scholastic theology. It isn't independent of origins. And of course, as metaphysics, isn't factual. It is as creative an interpretation as any other philosophy.
If I had had a child, I would have tried to hold it back a year. One year would have given it a lifetime of benefit in school. More emotional preparation, more physical advantage, better chances at sports, just overall better.