Total posts: 14,582
-->
@ludofl3x
The way I figure it, I'd at least be among the number of people who could honestly say "Well I didn't think any of the stories about a deity I heard made any sense, so I didn't believe any of them, because I had no evidence that convinced me. Since you left no evidence I didn't figure out you were there, which kind of seems by design, almost everyone (or perhaps LITERALLY everyone) had it wrong. Now I have evidence and I don't have to believe anything, I can just know." I feel like at least that line of logic would work before being catapulted into the void Python style.
Or maybe 92% correct? [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why would I not use the Bible and instead go with your particular bias and worldview slant???
As a thought experiment.
Step one, (IFF) I start with the assumption that A is true (THEN) do the apologetics for belief A seem adequate and reasonable?
Step two, (IFF) I start with the assumption that B is true (THEN) do the apologetics for belief B seem adequate and reasonable?
Step three, (IFF) I start with the assumption that C is true (THEN) do the apologetics for belief C seem adequate and reasonable?
The answer is yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Imagine an ocean liner. A child is playing on some deck chairs and falls overboard.No, I don't even understand the point.
Ten people see this happen and a rescue team is deployed immediately.
When the child is returned safely, one of the witnesses shouts out, "I prayed to Ahura Mazda to safely rescue the child, and since the child is unharmed, that is proof that Ahura Mazda heard my prayer!!!"
Each of the remaining nine witnesses all prayed to a different god and they all believed that the rescued child was proof of their gods existence.
So which god is the real god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Maybe god appeared to the Jews as yhwh and to the Indians as vishnu.With two conflicting accounts of Himself?Is that wrong? I'm not really sure about the rules.
If conflicting reports discredit each other, then please explain,
Matthew 2:1-23 tells us that Mary and Joseph lived in a house in Bethlehem where Mary gave birth to Jesus and the couple received the magi. Later, the family fled to Egypt and after Herod’s death returned to Judea and settled in Nazareth. But according to Luke 2:1-7, Joseph and Mary already lived in Nazareth. They went to Bethlehem to enroll in a census, and Jesus was born there in a manger. The family later returned to Nazareth without making any trip to Egypt. [LINK]
And why would Matthew mention Herod’s slaughter of the innocents and Luke skip it altogether?
And why would Matthew say Magi visited the baby Jesus and Luke says it was shepherds? [LINK]
And why would Luke mention a census, but Matthew leave that out?
And, how do you "follow a star"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated in a variety of ways, including radiocarbon and by linguistics experts. Most tests agree that they were written at different times between 150 BCE and 70 BCE. [LINK]
Don't you think it's a little strange that parts of the gospels and the story of the messiah were written down before the Jesus was born?
Nevertheless, there are some similarities between the two groups and their writings, which make for interesting comparisons. For example, a list of miracles appears in both Luke 7:21–22 of the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scroll known as the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521). In Luke 7, Jesus gives these miracles to the disciples of John the Baptist as proof that he is the messiah. In the Messianic Apocalypse, which was written approximately 150 years before Luke’s Gospel, the Lord is the one who will perform these miracles. The source for both of these lists is Isaiah chapters 35 and 61. While not all of the same miracles appear in Luke 7 and the Messianic Apocalypse, the miracles that do appear in both are listed in the same order. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Luke 21:20-2420 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.
Generally, when you are surrounded by unspecified armies, you are in a heap of trouble. This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".
21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
Mountains are almost always a safe bet in wartime. Flee the city and stay away from the city. This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
Did you just pretend to predict "war"? War will happen and it's not going to be fun!!!!
23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
People will be distressed and people will die. This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".
This prophecy is very specific.
No it isn't.
It names a historical city and specific people (the pronouns "you" and "your" plus "they" and "those" applies to the disciples and the Jewish people under the Mosaic Covenant during the 1st-century), a specific region(Judea) and a specific time frame (when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies once again) and things that do not apply to us today (they will fall by the edge of the sword).
What time frame are you talking about? This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".
The sword is not used in modern warfare today. Not only this, everything written would incorporate the OT scriptures and quite possibly some NT scriptures (what was written at the time of this author writing - i.e., the OT).
I'm pretty sure people still get beheaded and sliced into quarters with machetes even today. This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".
The same can be said of Daniel 9:24-27. It is a very specific prophecy concerning very specific people (Daniel's people who are in a covenant relationship with God) plus a very specific time frame in which specific events will happen.
Even if this stuff is 100% accurate, it does not prove the "YHWH" had anything to do with it.
Don't you believe other nations were able to reasonably predict which cities and towns were most likely to be attacked by enemies?
These predictions are not rocket science. This is basic military strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Kalacakra tantra prophesies that when the world declines into war and greed, and all is lost, the 25th Kalki king will emerge from Shambhala with a huge army to vanquish "Dark Forces" and usher in a worldwide Golden Age. Using calculations from the Kalachakra Tantra, Alex Berzin puts this date at 2424. [LINK]
Guess who's going to be laughing in approximately 404 years!!!!!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But we live in a world where murder is wrong, so there must be a moral standard. Now if that moral standard isn't just human opinion it must have been created by something other than humans, ie by God.
There is absolutely no reason to arbitrarily disqualify/eliminate "moral intuition/opinion" as a de facto moral standard.
Why do dogs and ants and lions and lobsters not murder all of their family members? Do they (must they) also believe in god(s)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I agree - accurate foretellings of the future would undermine a major objection to theism.
What major objection?
Accurate foretellings of the future are made every single day by scientists, and yet not all foretellings are accurate.
This track record does not "prove" science is reliable and predictions should still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Let's apply this same reasoning to religion.
Accurate foretellings of the future are made every single day by holy prophets and spiritualists and ancient books, and yet not all foretellings are accurate.
This track record does not "prove" holy prophets and spiritualists and ancient books are reliable and predictions should still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
As another example, a highly credentialed economist proves that they "predicted the housing crisis" by citing published articles written before the market collapse.
Does this mean that this particular economist is more reliable than their colleagues? Does this mean that this particular economist never makes mistakes?
Of course not. An accurate prediction in isolation proves nothing but blind luck. A reliable pattern of predictions, like those of a meteorologist lend greater credence to their claims of reliability. Out of 1000 predictions, how many were dead-accurate and how many were "close-calls" and more importantly HOW MANY WERE PRACTICAL AND ACTIONABLE?
This Daniel prediction is neither practical nor actionable and amounts to pure trivia.
Astrophysicists can predict how far away the moon will be from the earth in 100,000 years. Who cares? This is neither practical nor actionable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Maybe god appeared to the Jews as yhwh and to the Indians as vishnu.
Merry Krishnas!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
What are the earliest extant writings regarding Vishnu and how do they guard against corruption?I.e., when is the earliest source available? How many copies of that source, or do you claim it is the original revelation from Vishnu?
The Vedas – these texts date back to about 800 BCE. They originate from ancient India. The Vedas are the oldest Hindu texts and even the oldest texts in Sanskrit Literature. These sacred texts are very important for followers of Hinduism. The Hindus consider The Vedas “apaurusheya”. Which means “not of a man” or not of human origin. These texts also have no authors. Hindus believing that these texts are eternal. And they were created nor by human neither by gods. Although, The Mahabharata describes The Vedas to be created by Brahma.
There are 4 Vedas, each containing specific types of texts: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda.
The Upanishads – they are an important collection of ancient Hindu texts. Also, they contain fundamental philosophical concepts of Hinduism. This collection is often called Vedanta. Which can be translated in many ways. But basically describing the fact that the Upanishads are part of the Vedas. And it explains the Vedas.
The Upanishads are mostly philosophical texts describing and defining Hindu religious concepts. Therefore, concepts such as Brahman and Atman represent the central ideas of these texts. Some parts of the collection are believed to date back to about 600 BCE. [LINK]
The earliest extant reference to Brahmanism appears to be the Major Rock Edicts from about 260 BCE. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Establish the reasonableness for Vishnu as creator and sustainer of the universe from your scriptural sources that I may discuss the reasonableness of your claims.
Vishnu is merely an aspect of Brahman.
Brahman, in the Upanishads (Indian sacred writings), the supreme existence or absolute reality. The etymology of the word, which is derived from Sanskrit, is uncertain. Though a variety of views are expressed in the Upanishads, they concur in the definition of brahman as eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, and the spiritual core of the universe of finiteness and change. Marked differences in interpretation of brahman characterize the various schools of Vedanta, the system of Hindu philosophy based on the writings of the Upanishads.
According to the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta, brahman is categorically different from anything phenomenal, and human perceptions of differentiation are illusively projected on this reality. The Bhedabheda (Dualist-Nondualist) school maintains that brahman is nondifferent from the world, which is its product, but different in that phenomenality imposes certain adventitious conditions (upadhis) on brahman. The Vishishtadvaita (Qualified Nondualist) school maintains that a relation exists between brahman and the world of soul and matter that is comparable to the relation between soul and body; the school identifies brahman with a personal god, Brahma, who is both transcendent and immanent. The Dvaita (Dualist) school refuses to accept the identity of brahman and world, maintaining the ontological separateness of the supreme, which it also identifies with a personal god. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Logically, if X (biblical God) is true, then X does not equal Vishnu.
Logically, if X (Vishnu) is true, then X does not equal the "YHWH".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
For me, I choose prophecy as the vehicle to use in establishing the biblical claims are most reasonable and logical because I can demonstrate to such a degree that they actually happened in history.
Baha'is have pointed to the prophecies in the Hindu scriptures and stated that all of these have been fulfilled in this age. There are many passages in the Hindu writings which describe the condition of the world at the end of the Kalki Yuga. Baha'is would say that what is described in the Hindu books is exactly what we are seeing in the world today. Among the most striking of these passages from the Hindu holy books are the following:
"In the Kali Yuga, wealth alone will be the deciding factor of nobility [in place of birth, righteous behavior or merit]. And brute force will be the only standard or deciding what is righteous or just."
"Mutual liking [and not family pedigree, social status, etc.] will be the deciding factor in choosing a partner in marriage; cheating will be the order of the day in business relations; satisfaction of sexual pleasure will be the only consideration of male or female excellence and worthiness; and the wearing of the sacred thread (Yajnopavita) [and not pious behavior or Vedic or Shastric learning] will be the outward index of being a Brahmin.
In the Kali Yuga, only one quarter of each of the four feet of Dharma [panance, truthfulness, compassion and charity] remains. And that too goes on decreasing day by day while the feet of Adharma [unrighteousness] increase greatly. So that in the end Dharma becomes extinct."
"In that [Kali] age, people will be greedy. They will take to wicked behavior. They will be merciless, indulge in hostilities without any cause, unfortunate, extremely covetous for wealth and women. High social status will be attained by Sudras, fisherman and such other classes..."
"When deceit, falsehood, lethargy, sleepiness, violence, despondency. grief, delusion, fear, and poverty prevail, that is the Kali Yuga..."
"...mortal beings will become dull-wittwd, unlucky, voracious, destitute of wealth yet voloptuous, and women, wanton and unchaste.
Countries will be laid waste by robbers and vagabonds; the Vedas will be condemned heretics; kings will exploit their subjects, and twice-borns like Brahmanas will only think of the gratification of their sexual desires and other appetites.
"Celibates [of the Brahma Carya ashrama] will cease to observe their vows of study, purity and celibacy; householders will take to begging [instead of giving alms]; hermits [of the vanaprastha ashrama] will resort to villages [leaving their retreats in the forests]; and Sannyasins will be extremely greedy for money.[in short, the whole system of the Varnashrama Dharma will have broken down.]"
"Petty - minded people will conduct business transactions and merchants will be dishonest."
In the Kali Yuga, men will abandon their parents, brothers, friends, and relatives. They will occupy high seats [and pulpits] and will [pretend to] preach religion.
People will have their minds weighed down with constant anxiety and fear. This will be due to devastating famines and heavy taxation. The land will not grow food-crops, and the people will always be in fear of impending droughts.
There are similar prophecies in many other passages of the Hindu scriptures such as the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Vishnu Purana. Baha is believe that all of the conditions described in these books have come about today.
Swami Vivekananda, a prominent writer wrote: But greater than the present deep dismal night...no pall of darkness had ever before enveloped this holy land of ours. And compared with the depth of this fall, all previous falls appear like little hoof-marks.
There are also prophecies that we are seeing today of the breakdown of the caste system and the abandonment of religion: "The observance of caste, order and institutes will not prevail in the Kali Yuga; nor will that of the ceremonials and rituals enjoined by the Sama, Rig, and Yajur Vedas. Marriages, in this age, will not conform to the ritual; nor will the rules that connect the guru and his disciple be in force. The laws that regulate the conduct of husband and wife will be disregarded; and oblations to the gods with fire will no longer be offered..."
The doctrines of false teachers will be held to be scripture... In the Kali Yuga, those who practice fasting, austerity and liberality will do so in whatever way they please [and not according to the law]. And men will call this righteousness...
Men of all degrees, filled with conceit, will consider themselves to be equal with Brahmins...
In the Kali Yuga, men, corrupted by unbelievers, will refrain from adoring Vishnu, the Lord of sacrifice, the creator and lord of all. They will say: Of what authority are the Vedas? What are gods, or Brahmins? What need is there for purification with water?
"When the practices taught by the Vedas and the institutes of law shall nearly have ceased, and the close of the Kali age shall be nigh, a portion of that divine being who exists of his own spiritual nature in the character of Brahma, and who is the beginning and the end, and who comprehends all things, shall descend upon the earth. He will be born as Kalki in the family of an eminent brahmin of Sambhala village, endowed with the eight superhuman faculties. By his irresistible might he will destroy all the barbarians and thieves, and all whose minds are devoted to iniquity. He will then re-establish righteousness upon earth; and the minds of those who live at the end of the Kali age shall be awakened, and shall be as pellucid as crystal. The men who are thus changed by virtue of that peculiar time shall be as the seeds of human beings, and shall give birth to a race who shall follow the laws of the Krita age, the Age of Purity." --- Hinduism- Vishnu Purana 4.24 [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What dodge? I'm simply asking you for an explanation why drivers do not go bankrupt.
When a driver hits a pedestrian, often the biggest question is: Whose fault was the accident? Generally, fault is determined by the law of negligence. A person who fails to exercise a reasonable standard of care under the circumstances may be considered "negligent."
However, both the driver and the pedestrian can be at fault by being negligent. For example, the pedestrian may be crossing the street illegally while the driver is traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. This scenario is treated differently in different states.
Some states, such as Maryland and Virginia, follow what's called a "pure contributory negligence" rule. This means that if the pedestrian contributed in the slightest bit to the accident, then he and his auto insurance company cannot recover damages from the driver and his auto insurance company.
Other states follow a "comparative fault" rule. This means that a pedestrian can recover some damages even if he was partly at fault. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
In the same way that you don't accept "proofs" from other religions.I find you guys never engage in the proofs Christianity offers.
Historical facts from the Vedas do not convince you that the Hindu beliefs are true.
Therefore, historical facts are moot.
Accurate predictions in the Epic of Gilgamesh do not convince you that the ancient Sumerian gods are real.
Therefore, accurate predictions are moot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't know if it is upto me to prove logic is necessarily true or for you to prove it isn't.
Efficacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Let's refocus for a second.
Try to disprove the existence of Vishnu without mentioning the "YHWH" or the holy scriptures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What is rhetorical about the question? Drivers get fined for driving outside of their lane. That is not a hypothetical.
Great, you already knew the answer. That is the very definition of a rhetorical question.
Congratulations on another artful dodge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not sure how a blank slate can "create" anything without some set of basic tools and some material to sculpt.I almost can't believe you wrote this, did you come out of your momma's womb who you are now or is who you are now the results of development?
I was born with certain instincts and certain physical and mental capabilities. I did not choose these instincts and capabilities. These instincts and capabilities absorbed my primary experiences from the environment which I quite accidentally found myself, which I also did not choose.
Children react to their environment and experiences based on their primary instincts and capabilities. These primary experiences lay the groundwork for young adulthood when we begin to "choose" our experiences from a very limited set of options that are directly correlated to our geographic and temporal placement. As we get older we become aware of more "choices" but every decision draws on our primary experiences and each and every one of our previous life choices. For example, [LINK]
this should be common sense. Since the soul was created at a point in time it leaves the Godhead as a seed or like a baby, where it then develops who it is through experience in the world. Pretty simple no? like a new born baby, a newly created soul has no real experience and has not had the chance to develop, hence was not created with "content".
A "new soul" may not have "experience" but it does have instincts and capabilities. It is not a "tabula rasa". [LINK]
Maybe the word content here is not suitable for you? what I mean, is that the soul hasn't had the chance to become what it is without that experience and knowledge.
My point is that we don't choose our instincts and capabilities and we also do not choose our primary experiences on which all of our future "choices" are predicated.
Do you believe everyone has a "fair shot" at living an ideal life?Sure, but remember that karma and reincarnation play a huge role in what the soul experiences or has to learn from so within reincarnation lifetimes are virtually endless. But my answer is yes, of course but I have no control over that and not sure what that question has to do with what I'm saying.
Ok, if you want to throw "karma" into it. I guess that means that you believe we did choose our instincts and capabilities by our actions in our previous life. However, those decisions are based on the previous life and those are based on the previous life and those are based on the previous life all the way back to the first life. So while "karma" seems to muddy the waters and sort of moves the goalposts, it doesn't really "solve" the "problem".
How exactly does an "empty cup" "choose" what it experiences? Does an infant decide to have abusive or neglectful or loving parents? Does a family choose to be born into a war zone?I fail to see what this has to do with the soul leaving the Godhead as an empty vessel or seed.....I never said it chooses what it experiences, I said it develops who it is THROUGH experience just as you did no?
It develops who it is THROUGH experience - that is not chosen.
Although a souls desires play some role in where it ends up, mostly in this world what we experience is entangled with Karma so naturally there will be many unfortunate events that are out of our control. But if you want to discuss Karma that's a whole separate discussion and has many dynamics involved and as well I'm not going to judge anyone's circumstances other than my own. What I'm talking about, is the very beginning state of the soul as it leaves the Creator. This could be the souls first experience in the world, or it could be an old soul and returning to this world...either way it is not created already developed.
It might not be "created already developed", but it is created with certain instincts and capabilities and introduced to an environment that has a limited number of variables. In the same way that an oak seed may grow into a larger or smaller oak, and based on its location and environment and historical context it may be more likely or less likely to be struck by lightning or cut down for firewood, but it certainly won't grow into a maple or a cabbage.
I see, so do you imagine that "human life" is some sort of absurd obstacle course or quality control sorting booth?Funny, but if you knew that the soul does in fact exist then it shouldn't be to hard to comprehend that this life is a testing grounds....and you see that everywhere you look, as well as cyclical activity. You can label it absurd of course, but it is the very nature of the soul to learn and experience through life.
I'm not challenging your presupposition that "the soul does in fact exist". The same rules of cause and effect apply equally to physics and metaphysics.
Do you believe it would be fair to say that, "it is the very nature of a tree to learn and experience through life"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your question appears to be rhetorical.
I'm simply asking you for clarification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'd say 'atrocious' means 'pertaining to atrocities' so it's actually a tautology!
Yes, good point, however, without a rigorous Quantifiable definition of "atrocity" the statement is fundamentally subjective.
I'd say tradey doesn't insist morality is objective - he's saying it's his hunch that morality is objective. The motivation for that hunch is that it is not easy to imagine how rape or murder could be anything but evil, even if rigorous proof is not immediately obvious. Sam Harris was a famous propenent of developing the tools required to create such proofs, thus turning morality into a quantitative science.
Here's the problem. We all have similar "moral intuitions" because we are similar humans living in similar cultures in a similar historical setting.
What we need to highlight is that CONSENSUS =/= OBJECTIVE.
The fundamental flaw in Sam Harris' reasoning is that he compares morality to medical science. He falsely claims that there is always an objectively "good" or "better" medical treatment and there is always an objectively "bad" or "worse" medical treatment. This is insanely naive. Medical treatment is very often a crap-shoot because what works reasonably well for one patient will not always work reasonably well for another.
12 or 24 months ago that was my position too - there'll be loads of posts by me arguing it on DDO. But I've changed my mind and I now prefer 'moral nihilism'. That doesn't mean i've changed my mind about murder being bad! It's only my view of what morality is 'in abstract theory' that has changed. My view now is morality does not exist (ie morality is no-thing hence 'moral nihilism'); what does exist is 'moral judgement'.
Yes, I remember your "moral mathematics" quite well. And I am still intrigued by the concept. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Well stated.You mean besides not even attempting it in eight pages? Each of your posts seems to come down to "bible quote" (without demonstrating that bible is true, again it's the claim not the evidence) + "Special pleading / argument from incredulity" X "confirmation bias." If you could do it, you'd have done it, I've asked directly several times. I'll ask again: can you prove that your religion is true and every other one is false, that your god is real and all others fiction, without referring to the bible as it is the claim not evidence? It's a yes or no question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that drivers bear no responsibility for injuring pedestrians?Lol, why aren't drivers bankrupted today for driving out of their driving lane?
Where's their "skin in the game"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If you insist that "morality is not subjective", then please simply present your purely objective universal moral principle.I think it would be naïve - (at least in my naïve mind) to suggest that evil things do not occur in this world. I think some things are absolutely evil - I know some talk of subjective morality - yet, in what universe could it ever be acceptable for rape to be considered morally good, or in what universe would there ever be a morally justifiable reason for an adult to rape a 6 month old baby? I really don't think it is a relative or subjective situation - it really is just wrong. and yet we know it happens. And that would be the argument - that sometimes, some people think it is justifiable. Yet, I don't see that is as argument at all. I think it just shows how evil and desperate they are.
It should really be that easy.
Claiming that "atrocities are atrocious" is, strictly speaking, (even if everyone agrees with you) a subjective value judgement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
and then trying to argue that X amount of people would be bankrupted by fines
Just as long as the drivers are also bankrupted by fines. Responsibility should be symmetrical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I certainly hope so.Feser is a considerably more sophisticated philosopher than Zacharias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Gross bodily injury and possible death is not enough risk for you? You make it sound like people are jumping in front of cars in order to get a free paid tropical vacation. Please cite your sources."For not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education."- Aristotle -You ask someone to cite sources when they're referencing an event or a statistic. When they make an argument from analogy, you either pick apart one of their points or the structure of their logic. That's exactly what this example was: an analogy to show the principle of behavioral psychology which underlies the phenomenon in question, and to illuminate why arguments attacking changes in risk from the assumption of persistent trends in behavior are misguided.
So basically, you have no answer.
Are you suggesting that people are jumping in front of cars in order to get a free paid tropical vacation?
Yes or no.
How many automobile-pedestrian collisions are at 120km/h are over?
Although it can be tempting to push the speed limit when you are running late, speeding is the second most common cause of accidents, so you should resist the urge and stay within the legal limits. [LINK]
How many pedestrian-heavy areas even offer the physical possibility to accelerate to those speeds before running into traffic or a stop light?
Even traveling 5 miles over the speed limit can mean the difference between a deadly collision with a pedestrian and avoiding an accident altogether.
Which is easier on society at large: for everyone to drive 55mph on the freeway, or for idiots to not step into a road outside of a crosswalk?
(IFF) the driver is speeding or distracted (THEN) they should also be heavily fined at least as much if not moreso than your hypothetical pedestrian.
That's part of the problem. When people like this start talking about "personal responsibility" it always seems to focus on the people who have the least. Doesn't the driver have "personal responsibility"? What about the city planner who builds hundreds of blind corners into their street plan?The driver does have personal responsibility. When the pedestrian is in the cross walk, the driver has the responsibility to stop. When the driver is on the road, the pedestrian has the personal responsibility to stay on the side walk.
Oh, ok, I guess we agree 100%.
As for city planning, Singapore receives a lot of complaints from certain corners, but it's usually considered one of the best planned cities in the world.
I guess that's pretty amazing if you live in Singapore, but it doesn't really answer my question.
Another example of this is student loans. Make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy again, and you would see a lot less lending, and colleges would charge a lot less in tuition. This is because you would introduce risk into the equation, and the bank would actually have to ask themselves 'will this girl with no capital be able to pay back a loan using the skills obtained during her undergraduate in feminist studies with a minor in lesbian basketweaving?' Combine that with the revocation of tax-free status on endowment capital gains and you could fix the student loan debt problem overnight.You don't seem to understand how money works. The banks have lobbied to get government guarantees for student loans. Not to "help" anyone, but in order to boost their profit margins. It's not the student's own personal failure. The banks are in a rush to loan to any student regardless of their potential earnings simply because they've (the banks themselves) lobbied to have those loans guaranteed. I agree this also inflates tuition. I would love to see an end to guaranteed student loans. I just don't blame the students for any of this mess.Where did I blame the students? I rather explicitly said that the banks had divested themselves of risk and that said risk should be returned. The students are mostly dumb kids, society should protect them, not throw them to these fucking usurious vultures. If the bank gave a student a loan of $70,000 to pursue a degree in queer theory, then the bank deserves to lose every single penny.
You seemed to "blame the students" with your sexist-homophobic "basketweaving" remark.
Very well, if you are advocating for banks being responsible for their losses, like they should have been for the "housing crisis" then again, we are 100% in agreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Feser's book, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, makes a philosophical argument for the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic worldview over and against the materialist assumptions and scientistic prejudices of contemporary atheists such as Richard Dawkins, of whom he is particularly critical. [LINK]
Ok, I can't wait to read up on this guy.
The last one of these I read was from Ravi Zacharias, "Jesus Among Secular Gods".
His whole argument was, "Atheism can't answer spiritual questions and will make you depressed and commit suicide, therefore THE JESUS IS REAL".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
HOw is "original sin" which you are born with, a "choice"?He made humanity in His image likeness thus they have the ability to make choices.
Also, does this mean that the Jesus (and Mary) couldn't make choices?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
What means does Vishnu provide in the writings that are supposedly from such a being?
Spiritual TRUTH.
Give me some examples from these writings that have verifiability to them.
Using modern scientific methods, such as satellite imagery and dating techniques, it can be shown that the ancient statements of the Vedas are factual, not mythical as erroneously propagated. High resolution satellite images have verified descriptions in The Rig Veda of the descent of the ancient Sarasvati River from it's source in the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. [LINK]
What is Vishnu if not a personal being, since you refer to Vishnu as an "it."
Why would a god (like the "YHWH") need an identity defined by human sexual organs?
List some of the Bhagavad Gita that can be demonstrated by history. What kind of prophecies has come about exactly as written?
Using modern scientific methods, such as satellite imagery and dating techniques, it can be shown that the ancient statements of the Vedas are factual, not mythical as erroneously propagated. High resolution satellite images have verified descriptions in The Rig Veda of the descent of the ancient Sarasvati River from it's source in the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. [LINK]
Of course we both know what your are asking for is a red-herring.
We've already established the historical accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, but that doesn't "prove" any of their gods were "real".
Historical accuracy is moot. Accurate predictions are also moot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Thanks. How do you get the blockquote from another post imbedded in a post. Do I need to use HTML?
You just copy and paste the text you want to quote, then highlight it, then hit the " button right above the text entry field.
Right next to the "B" for bold, the "I" for italics and the "U" for underline and the "chain link" for "link".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
See my post to keithprosser at 9:51am.
Kant's noumenon.
Everything is easily divided into Quanta and Qualia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The problem with this kind of rhetoric is that it is about 50% on the money.
It's not idiotic, what's idiotic is letting some rich dickhole kill around 100,000 people and retire into the sunset with generous stock options.
I already said, "this seems like a fair point".
You fail to realize that a system like the one which Taleb advocates would restructure incentives.
The only detectable "system" Taleb seemed to identify was "the silver rule". Which is great in theory, but only "works" about 50% in practice.
People jaywalk less in Singapore, because instead of getting a fat payout from lawsuit if a car hits you and zero consequences if it doesn't, you get up to $1,000 dollars in fines if you step out onto the pavement and if you get hit outside of a crosswalk you don't have right of way. If you argued against the Singaporean system by citing the frequency of jaywalking in the US and then trying to argue that X amount of people would be bankrupted by fines or mowed over then you are making either a dishonest or an ignorant argument.
Gross bodily injury and possible death is not enough risk for you? You make it sound like people are jumping in front of cars in order to get a free paid tropical vacation. Please cite your sources.
This is because when you introduce a risk to a decision, people decide differently. The end result of not shielding people for economic risks is that they would take fewer economic risks, which means that there are a whole lot of stupid risks which the system no longer needs to absorb.
The problem isn't with the pedestrians "taking stupid risks". Do you have any thoughts on the automobile designer who makes a vehicle capable of traveling 120kph over any speed limit in the country? Do you realize that it is possible to design vehicles that drastically reduce pedestrian injuries?
That's part of the problem. When people like this start talking about "personal responsibility" it always seems to focus on the people who have the least. Doesn't the driver have "personal responsibility"? What about the city planner who builds hundreds of blind corners into their street plan?
Another example of this is student loans. Make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy again, and you would see a lot less lending, and colleges would charge a lot less in tuition. This is because you would introduce risk into the equation, and the bank would actually have to ask themselves 'will this girl with no capital be able to pay back a loan using the skills obtained during her undergraduate in feminist studies with a minor in lesbian basketweaving?' Combine that with the revocation of tax-free status on endowment capital gains and you could fix the student loan debt problem overnight.
You don't seem to understand how money works. The banks have lobbied to get government guarantees for student loans. Not to "help" anyone, but in order to boost their profit margins. It's not the student's own personal failure. The banks are in a rush to loan to any student regardless of their potential earnings simply because they've (the banks themselves) lobbied to have those loans guaranteed. I agree this also inflates tuition. I would love to see an end to guaranteed student loans. I just don't blame the students for any of this mess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Vishnu demonstrates to humanity that what is made pours forth reasons for it and humanity has understood this since the record of history began. That is why we find most cultures, if not every culture, has a concept of a higher being that they worship. The problem is that if you do not worship Vishnu as it is you worship an idol, a human construct. To avoid this happening the chosen ones believe Vishnu has demonstrated to humanity in its revelation who it is. Thus, as the Bhagavad Gita explains, we who reject Vishnu in our unrighteousness are without excuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Not according to dogma.It was theorised in the middle ages that Mary was born by virgin birth.but that as ruled out by the church in 1677. Currently, the Catholic Church teaches that God acted upon Mary in the first moment of her conception, keeping her "immaculate".
I just have to wonder why god didn't "act" upon Adam and Eve's children to remove "original sin" from them, thus saving us and everyone else a whole lot of trouble.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, through Adam's seed, we are reckoned. It was through Adam's seed that our natures changed in that we no longer maintained that relationship with God.
I guess women are not born with "original sin".
It sounds like women should be in charge of everything related to Christian churches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Congratulations on understanding the theology behind Mary's 'immaculate conception'!According to doctrine, Mary was indeed without original sin.
So Mary's mother (grandmother of the Jesus) was also free of "original sin"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I listened to this over the weekend. [LINK]Enjoy.
He refused to summarize his book, but he does end up making a few interesting points mixed in (about 50/50) with some incoherent anecdotes.
He suggests that people who declare war should be required to send their draft aged children and grand children into combat.
This seems like a fair point.
Then he suggests that entrepreneurs should risk permanent financial and reputational losses for their endeavors. This seems idiotic.
People who "risk it all" and succeed make compelling subjects for study and amusement, however they are not ideal models to emulate.
Survival bias is great in theory, but it neglects all the uncompelling failure stories that are never made into best selling books and movies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I guess women are not born with "original sin".For a perfect human being, the corruptible seed of Adam was not used. What other human being is this claim said of that has good corroborating evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
God does not upload a soul with content, the soul creates its own content
I'm not sure how a blank slate can "create" anything without some set of basic tools and some material to sculpt.
Do you believe everyone has a "fair shot" at living an ideal life?
however God does create the soul. But more like an empty cup sent into the worlds of duality where it gains whatever content it wishes through experience and perceptions.
How exactly does an "empty cup" "choose" what it experiences? Does an infant decide to have abusive or neglectful or loving parents? Does a family choose to be born into a war zone?
Not powerless, the soul learns through its own experiences and desires, that's why it is not classified as a robot but a sentient being capable of choosing. The only way a soul can learn is to experience it, if God were to take away that aspect there would be no reason for the soul to be here.
I see, so do you imagine that "human life" is some sort of absurd obstacle course or quality control sorting booth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Citation please.Their arguments are mostly air-tight
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I think murder is wrong.
Axiomatically.
Yet, I also accept that there is a significant issue with people discussing evil or right and wrong.
(IFF) "right and wrong" is concrete and universal (THEN) why did we need Vatican II? [LINK]
Especially when it comes to discussing the existence of God or not.
The discussion of whether or not a god exists is tangential at best.
After all, if absolute evil does not exist for the atheist - then evil can never be attributed speculatively or not to a hypothetical deity.
Strangely, my objection to the concept of "absolute good and evil" is not that "it doesn't exist" but more specifically that it is unquantifiable.
There is no religion that clearly defines "absolute good and evil" based on incontrovertible principles.
My position would be quite easily disproved by simply and clearly stating your preferred universal moral principle (golden rule or silver rule for example).
And [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Are you suggesting that god did not create humans with instincts that drive (motivate, animate, inspire) these desires (aka, wishies)?...man is enticed through what [t]he[y] wish to entertain through [their] personal state of awareness, then comes actions, which either produces evil or good, love or hate and everything in between.
Are you suggesting that god did not place these enticements to "evil" within human grasp?
Are you suggesting that god is powerless to remove dangerous ("evil") enticements from reach in order to protect the human?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Please elaborate.No taxes on the poor has rotted the government to the core.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Lol try asking, that may help if you want to know my answers.The dynamics are as follows because we are dealing with two conditions not just one, actually many conditions. God is making decisions from a full conscious state of awareness and being, whereas we as individual souls are making decisions from varying limited states of awareness whatever they are. And to make things worse, we as individuals give strength to our habits and states of awareness becoming co-creators with God in a dualistic environment. If this were not so, there would be no Karma, no sowing and reaping as it wouldn't matter if there were no distinction.God is not omnipotent, or omniscient....God is only omnipresent.Having said that, God has access to every channel of awareness but the individual soul is learning through their actions....
Are you trying to say that god always does what is ultimately good in the long-run-bigger-picture sense, but in the short-term-small-picture sense it might appear to be "evil" to human block-heads?
A little like this old story,
There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.
His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."
The farmer doesn't reply.
A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.
His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"
The farmer doesn't reply.
A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.
The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."
The farmer doesn't reply.
The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.
The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."
The farmer doesn't reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Presumably this is when the importance of a sacred text comes into play.
(EVEN IFF) The Jesus was a real, historical human being.
(EVEN IFF) The (historically verifiable) prophecies of the Jewish and Christian scriptures are 100% true.
Neither of these things lend the slightest credibility to either the Jewish or Christian religious beliefs.
In the exact same way,
(EVEN IFF) Gilgamesh was a real, historical human being.
(EVEN IFF) The (historically verifiable) events and prophecies of the Epic of Gilgamesh are 100% true.
Neither of these things lend the slightest credibility to the ancient Sumerian religious beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
...how does one justify going from "creator" to any god with a capital G. [?]
Excellent point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Since evil is not a thing or object, but rather a result of an action it can't be "created" like a thing or object, it is the result of someone's actions. If one wishes to argue that all actions are the result of God's doing, then that would be a proper argument although seriously misunderstood because of the dynamics involved.
So, something like,
(IFF) god is omnipotent (THEN) all actions, good or evil are necessarily de facto acts of god.
And, (IFF) god is very-potent but not omnipotent (THEN) some actions (some perhaps good and some perhaps evil) are not necessarily acts of god.
Created: