Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Whether you want to call it discrimination or not is you being irresponsible.
WHAT?
DISCRIMINATION is a MORE accurate term for what you call "racism".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I was actually expecting a reference to people who sincerely have sought the creator, without preconceived notions, and found the creator to be one other than Yahweh (Allah, Vishnu, Dagon, Xanadu, etc.
Perhaps you've heard of GNOSIS?
Here's an example of what I believe you're referring to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcOvWGuQTow
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
These are people seeking enlightenment, not seeking the/a creator.
They are seeking "the truth" (meaning).
They are seeking "the source" (creator).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you don't know what a spirit is either, neither do I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Bodhisattvas are enlightened beings who have put off entering paradise in order to help others attain enlightenment.
There are many different Bodhisattvas, but the most famous in China is Avalokitesvara, known in Chinese as Guanyin.
Bodhisattvas are usually depicted as less austere or inward than the Buddha.
Renouncing their own salvation and immediate entrance into nirvana, they devote all their power and energy to saving suffering beings in this world. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
My personal opinion is of no importance here.
The importance of your personal opinion is the only reason I'm giving you my attention.
Strangely, it appears I value your opinion MORE than you value it yourself.
You're trying to say that your understanding and definition of "YHWH" is somehow, inexplicably, NOT your personal opinion??
Who's opinion are you FOLLOWING?
And YES,
(IFF) your "spiritual insight" is based purely on your personal, first-hand, unfalsifiable "direct experience" of what you interpret to be "YHWH"
(THEN) STOP PRETENDING YOUR "FAITH" IS LOGICALLY-COHERENT.
Created:
Posted in:
Admitting that racism is a thing, and calling it racism is an everybody who's actually rational thing
I disagree.
Discrimination is real.
The concept of "race" is fabricated.
Between 1660 and 1690 the RULING CLASS invented the term "WHITE RACE" very specifically as a tool to FRACTIONALIZE poor workers.
The English had a long history of separating themselves from others and treating foreigners, such as the Irish, as alien “others.” By the 17th century their policies and practices in Ireland had led to an image of the Irish as “savages” who were incapable of being civilized.
The social position of Africans in the early colonies has been a source of considerable debate. Some scholars have argued that they were separated from European servants and treated differently from the beginning. Later historians, however, have shown that there was no such uniformity in the treatment of Africans. Records indicate that many Africans and their descendants were set free after their periods of servitude. They were able to purchase land and even bought servants and slaves of their own.
Some African men became wealthy tradesmen, craftsmen, or farmers, and their skills were widely recognized. They voted, appeared in courts, engaged in business and commercial dealings, and exercised all the civil rights of other free men. Some free Africans intermarried, and their children suffered little or no special discrimination. Other Africans were poor and lived with other poor men and women; Blacks and whites worked together, drank together, ate together, played together, and frequently ran away together.
Moreover, the poor of all colours protested together against the policies of the government (at least 25 percent of the rebels in Bacon’s Rebellion [1676] were Blacks, both servants and freedmen). The social position of Africans and their descendants for the first six or seven decades of colonial history seems to have been open and fluid and not initially overcast with an ideology of inequality or inferiority.
The colonial leaders found a solution to both problems: by the 1690s they had divided the restless poor into categories reflecting their origins, homogenizing all Europeans into a “white” category and instituting a system of permanent slavery for Africans, the most vulnerable members of the population.
Between 1660 and 1690, leaders of the Virginia colony began to pass laws and establish practices that provided or sanctioned differential treatment for freed servants whose origins were in Europe. They conscripted poor whites, with whom they had never had interests in common, into the category of free men and made land, tools, animals, and other resources available to them. [LINK]
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Admitting that racism is a thing, and calling it racism is an everybody who's actually rational thing
I disagree.
Discrimination is real.
The concept of "race" is fabricated.
Between 1660 and 1690 the RULING CLASS invented the term "WHITE RACE" very specifically as a tool to FRACTIONALIZE poor workers.
The English had a long history of separating themselves from others and treating foreigners, such as the Irish, as alien “others.” By the 17th century their policies and practices in Ireland had led to an image of the Irish as “savages” who were incapable of being civilized.
The social position of Africans in the early colonies has been a source of considerable debate. Some scholars have argued that they were separated from European servants and treated differently from the beginning. Later historians, however, have shown that there was no such uniformity in the treatment of Africans. Records indicate that many Africans and their descendants were set free after their periods of servitude. They were able to purchase land and even bought servants and slaves of their own.
Some African men became wealthy tradesmen, craftsmen, or farmers, and their skills were widely recognized. They voted, appeared in courts, engaged in business and commercial dealings, and exercised all the civil rights of other free men. Some free Africans intermarried, and their children suffered little or no special discrimination. Other Africans were poor and lived with other poor men and women; Blacks and whites worked together, drank together, ate together, played together, and frequently ran away together.
Moreover, the poor of all colours protested together against the policies of the government (at least 25 percent of the rebels in Bacon’s Rebellion [1676] were Blacks, both servants and freedmen). The social position of Africans and their descendants for the first six or seven decades of colonial history seems to have been open and fluid and not initially overcast with an ideology of inequality or inferiority.
The colonial leaders found a solution to both problems: by the 1690s they had divided the restless poor into categories reflecting their origins, homogenizing all Europeans into a “white” category and instituting a system of permanent slavery for Africans, the most vulnerable members of the population.
Between 1660 and 1690, leaders of the Virginia colony began to pass laws and establish practices that provided or sanctioned differential treatment for freed servants whose origins were in Europe. They conscripted poor whites, with whom they had never had interests in common, into the category of free men and made land, tools, animals, and other resources available to them. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Race denialism is leftwing.
Citation please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
He'll take a statement and either give the worst, bad faith interpretation of it, or he'll engage in hyper-reductionism to the point where everything is meaningless.
I wonder if this statement was made in "good faith"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
When I say insulted I'm referring to the action (i.e. saying something r00d). Not the effect that the action has on the person receiving the insult.
Seriously?
Can an action be unintentionally insulting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
The mods have made it clear that they don't care about people teeing off on each other (especially since one of them engages in such behaviour), and not to do so would put me at a disadvantage.
If by "disadvantage" you mean, "appearing to be reasonable and mature", then, well, I guess?
Do you believe "appearing to be reasonable and mature" is a poor life strategy (generally)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@MgtowDemon
Banned from:11.30.2020 06:36PMBanned until:01.20.2103 06:36PMBanned by:Ban reason:Permanently banned for a body of work spewing hate speech and general toxicity.
Is "hate speech" somehow different than "ad hominem attacks"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So, it sounds like you've decided "YHWH" = "SPIRIT".
In your personal opinion, what's a "SPIRIT"?
Created:
-->
@Conway
It's true that [SOME] people with fair skin are smarter than [SOME] people with a dark complexion, and there's a genetic component, but the opposite is also the case. [SOME] People with dark complexion are smarter than [SOME] people with fair skin.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
How does one find the debates of a particular member ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Maybe science could prove objective morality?
Are you familiar with Sam Harris?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that true nothingness is impossible to conceptualize BECAUSE IT IS LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If I don't understand something, I study, I ask people, sometimes I never receive an answer or resolution. This is a common feature of everyone I know.
So you're not a "follower" of your specific Church (denomination)?
You're more of a "co-seeker" who is just trying to "do your best" to "piece things together for yourself"?
You sound like you might be a GNOSTIC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I indicated that the Bible is what I call an axiom
The KKK considers "The Bible" an AXIOM as well.
How can two people, who both consider "The Bible" 100% true, disagree about what is "right" and what is "wrong"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
the concept of nothing isn't actually nothing.
That was my entire point from the word go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What do you know about GNOSIS?All the usual. What can you tell me about gnosis?
The GNOSTIC tradition is basically a loose collection of metaphorical frameworks that are very specifically NOT to be mistaken for "actual" "literal" "things" (the map itself is not the territory).
One of the key points of GNOSTICISM is that each individual must experience their "revelation" first-hand.
Any specific aspect of "ultimate truth" that you "discover" or "directly experience" by your personally preferred procedure is going to be "diminished" if you try to "explain" it to anyone (more specifically if you try to "convince" those who have not yet "seen it for themselves").
(IFF) someone mistakes their personal GNOSIS for "the-one-true-and-only-actual-literal-really-real-for-realzies-truth" (TOTAOALRRFRT) (THEN) they have created a DOGMA and the foundation of a CULT
I think you might have a good idea of what I'm referring to if you've ever studied the Essenes (who we know about largely from the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It's pretty safe to say, you do not want to find God in the first place. Unless maybe God meets certain personal criteria. I think you can pretty much forget that though.
There are a great many ancient traditions of devout and sincere "seekers".
Strangely, they haven't managed to all find the exact same "YHWH".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
God is light
So, photons?
God is spirit
I'm guessing "spirit" = photons = "YHWH"?
God is not human
Ok, so not a "male"? I mean, does it have (photonic) chromosomes or something?
I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god
The "YHWH" (photons) is the "prime-mover" and the inevitable heat-death of the cosmos. I mean, sure, that's "great" and all, but in real-world-practical-terms, what are any of us supposed to actually do with this information?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But is nothing something?...Specifically in terms of conceptualization.
Nope.
I mean "the word" "no-thing" is a "thing".
But even the concept of "no-thing" isn't actually "no-thing".
It's just sort of a slang term (place-holder) we use when we mean "of little or no known significance".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Without an objective, universal, unchanging standard, morality does not exist.
So, what's your "objective, universal, unchanging standard"?
Because "the ten commandments + love thy neighbor" leaves some not insignificant gaps (from a legal perspective).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It would seem that a "no-thing" can only "exist" at no-place and at no-time and have no-size and no-volume.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It all depends on the concept of nothing.
How is that possible?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
...he restores what's lost in the afterlife.
So, we should probably just step back and let "YHWH" handle injustice.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Catholics have historically had a rather problematic relationship with the children of Israel.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
If the belief in god is the only thing holding them back, then by all means, ignore my arguments!
Please forget I said anything!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
In the bible.
Can you point me to a specific passage perhaps?
I was thinking over your idea about deists and theists. I understand now where you were headed an it is an interesting Idea.
My aim is to identify points we can agree on.
I thought you were an agnostic. Have you had a religious experience recently?
What do you know about GNOSIS?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Your worldview doesn't makes sense,
Or, "my strawman of your worldview doesn't make sense".
mine does,
Because I call my AXIOMS "FACTS" (and I ignore the intellectual journey that led me to adopt these axioms in the first place).
therefore I can {DO WHAT?} that you cannot do.
I can pretend I know what's "right" and what's "wrong" for everyone everywhere and you can't.
You can't make sense of morality,
Morality is just another word for "personal preference". Please present your personally preferred definition if you have a better one.
So, I think they're suggesting that we should all become worshipers of "YHWH" so we can feel justified in bullying everyone else on the planet into doing things we like.
I mean, if "YHWH" is for-realzies, then won't all the bad people get what they "deserve" when they die? Why would a Christian worry about laws and stuff?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
but changing the subject whenever you can't answer evidence is dishonest, to me anyway.
I wouldn't say "dishonest".
It's more like they're conflating the terms "FACT" and "AXIOM" without knowing the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The Bible was miles ahead of the times even for NT Israel.
Ok, but not quite so much today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
In fact if the bible is 100% true, then those things applied only to the OT Israelites and not even to modern ones.
Which "rules" still apply?
And where does the holy scripture explain this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I think I am making fewer assumptions. I have one. You have many. More than one.
Here's my list,
(1) COGITO ERGO SUM
Here's your list,
(1) My parents and Church leaders are infallible (or at least unquestionable)
(2) An old book, which has been edited and copied and translated thousands of times is 100% accurate
(3) The "YHWH" described in an old book is NOT logically incoherent AND loves me or whatever
(4) If I don't understand some apparent conflict in the text of an old book, I must trust the infallible Church leaders to guide me
(5) If everyone followed the instructions of an old book, then the world would be a perfect place for everyone
(6) Only idiots and evil mean and ugly people don't believe in old books and good stuff like me
(this second list is of-course, purely speculative, please highlight any parts you might disagree with)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Given the existence of God, my Axiom is that the Bible is the measure of right and wrong.
This statement has ZERO practical value.
Even if I agree with you.
All this means is that whoever on the planet can establish themselves as the foremost authority on "The Bible" becomes de facto KING OF MORALITY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nothing is necessarily logically-necessary...But it helps.
The concept of "nothing" is logically incoherent (and NOT logically necessary).
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
...the whole unraveling of this discourse is accomplished in two words: SO WHAT.
Strangely, if you truly thought there was "nothing" to be learned from this conversation, you wouldn't even be reading it.
"You can't make sense of your worldview according to my worldview." SO WHAT?
The core conflict is, "my frameworks is more logical than your framework".
And since the whole point of LOGIC is that it's supposed to be demonstrable, we should be able to get on the same page eventually (or at least narrow the points of disagreement).
"You don't have what's necessary to explain the big bang / origins!" SO WHAT.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
40 pages in this topic alone and there aren't any practical answers to these questions.
What do you consider a "practical" answer? What are you gaining from "other" discussions that seems to be specifically "missing" from this one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What are the parameters of your personally preferred definition of "YHWH"?Sorry. I do not go around assigning personal definitions to reality. I take the definition YHWH gives of Himself.
Where can I find "the definition YHWH gives itself"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What about a DEIST? Is a DEIST a THEIST?Yes.
Please explain what you personally believe is the key distinction between a THEIST and a DEIST (also please clarify if you believe the two are indistinguishable).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
A logically incoherent definition of "god($)" cannot be an accurate definition.I agree.
What are the parameters of your personally preferred definition of "YHWH"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Or is a DEIST an ATHEIST?No.
A DEIST is "NOT-A-THEIST".
ANYONE WHO IS "NOT-A-THEIST" IS TECHNICALLY AN ATHEIST.
DEISM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THEISM.
DEISM AND THEISM ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
Would it then be wise to say "Well, as you are asserting the idea that there are no invisible dwarfs, you must provide me evidence as to why these dwarfs don't exist."
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
So would you consider the prosecutor and defendant of a legal case to both be making positive assertions?
The BoP clearly should be on the prosecutor (innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).
I think the confusion lies in the fact that THEISTS often feel like "the defendant" and view the ATHEIST as "the prosecutor".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What about a DEIST? Is a DEIST a THEIST?Yes.
I disagree.
A THEIST believes in a specific type of god (that is incompatible with a DEISTIC god).
A DEIST believes in a specific type of god (that is incompatible with a THEISTIC god).
THEIST =/= DEIST
Created:
-->
@Conway
A social construct grouping people based on inheritable traits, physically distinct from other groups of people.
The term "inheritable traits" seems inexplicably vague.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No. I am saying that the original claim requires proof. Which that there were no un-demonstrated claims in the bible. I provided examples of undemonstrated claims- it is then the original claimers burden to either demonstrate or not demonstrate those claims.
We both know that NONE of the claims (historical or otherwise) in "The Bible" are empirically demonstrable OR logically-necessary.
But instead of trying to convince the "true believers" to adopt this rather mundane and rudimentary definition of "FACT", which they've apparently inoculated themselves against, it might be more productive to try and figure out what these "true believers" think the logical implications are for all of this "truth" in "the-real-world", you know, in practical terms.
Created: