Sidewalker

-->

@Shila

I have no idea, I just think you should drop it, doubling down on an innapropriate post accomplishes nothing.

You've let these trolls own you.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

generally, an idiot who kills someone accidentally

is more of a "danger to society"

than someone who kills a specific person for a specific reason

How do you measure the amount of intent between an accident and a specific reason? What is the mathematics used to determine one is "more" of a danger to society, is that a cup more, a foot more? Please quantify, provide units, etc.

also,

any system of justice that relies on divining someone's unquantifiable "intent" is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft

Any system of thought that relies on "measuring" qualities of mind is indistinguishable from nonsense.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Shila

What the hell?

You've lost your mind, your credibility, and probably your membership on this site.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Why do Republicans keep pleading the 5th?

-->

@RationalMadman

we should not resort to homophobia when insulting Trump's supporters.

Good point, that was inapropriate, my apologies.

I have a really good reason to be in a really bad mood today, not thinking.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

There is no compromising with MAGA Republicans. They are today’s slave holders

-->

@IwantRooseveltagain

endless anti-white government policies
I knew you were a neo-Nazi

It's not like he was trying to hide it.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Why do Republicans keep pleading the 5th?

-->

@Greyparrot

Are you trying to tell us Nazi's don't believe in Democracy? No shit?

At least I think that's what you are saying, it's hard to understand you with Trump's dick in your mouth.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

Deuteronomy was written somewhere between 700 and 1400 years before Jesus was born dumbass.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Shila

Jesus in the Talmud.
Excerpts from Rabbi Rosends link.

Bastard.
The Accusation
Insults Against Blessed Mary, Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.
"Jesus was a bastard born of adultery." (Yebamoth 49b, p.324).
"Mary was a whore: Jesus (Balaam) was an evil man." (Sanhedrin 106a &b, p.725).
"Jesus was a magician and a fool. Mary was an adulteress". (Shabbath 104b, p.504).

R. Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a book of geneologies in Jerusalem and in it is written "The man Plony is a bastard."

Balaam
R. Yochanan said (regarding Balaam): In the beginning a prophet, in the end a sorcerer.
Rav Papa said: As people say, "She was the descendant of princes and rulers, she played the harlot with carpenters."

The Accusation
Gloats over Jesus Dying Young, A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was?--He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."

The passage
A sectarian said to R. Chanina: Do you know how old Balaam was? [R. Chanina] replied: It is not written. However, since it says (Psalms 55:24) "Men of bloodshed and deceit will not live out half their days..." he was 33 or 34. [The heretic] said: You said well. I have seen the chronicle of Balaam and it said "At 33 years Balaam the lame was killed by Pinchas (Phineas) the robber."

Sifrei on Deuteronomy 34:10
"Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses" - But in other nations there did arise. Who? Balaam the son of Beor. But there is a difference between Moses's prophecy and Balaam's prophecy.
Moses did not know who spoke to him but Balaam knew who spoke to him, as it says (Numbers 24:16) "The words of the one who hears the sayings of G-d..."

Moses did not know when G-d would speak to him until he was spoken to but Balaam knew when He would speak, as it says (ibid.) "Who knows the knowledge of the Supreme One..."

With Moses, G-d would not speak to him until he was standing, as it says (Deuteronomy 5:28) "But as for you, stand here with Me..." But with Balaam, G-d would speak to him even while fallen, as it says (Numbers 24:4) "Who sees the vision of the Almighty, while fallen with uncovered eyes."

Avot DeRabbi Natan 2:5
Why is Job called (Job 1:8) "A perfect and upright man"? To teach us that he was born circumcised. Adam was also born circumcised as it says (Genesis 1:27) "So G-d created man in His image..." Seth was also born circumcised as it says (ibid. 5:2 ) "He begot in his likeness and his image..." Noah was also born circumcised... Shem was also born circumcised... Jacob was also born circumcised... Joseph was also born circumcised... Moses was also born circumcised... Even the wicked Balaam was born circumcised... Samuel was also born circumcised... David was also born circumcised... Jeremiah was also born circumcised... Zerubabel was also born circumcised...

Talmud Sanhedrin 106a
Numbers (24:14) "Come, I shall advise you..." Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: [Balaam] said to them: Their G-d hates promiscuity and they desire flaxen clothes. Let me give you this advice. Make tents and put old prostitutes in front of them and young ones inside... When the Jews are walking in the market, the old lady offers to sell them clothes at market value and the young one offers it cheaper. After two or three times she tells him that he is already a comfortable visitor and should choose what he wants, all the while a bottle of Amonite wine sitting beside her. She offers him a glass of wine. After he drinks it will burn him up and he will ask for sex. She will take out her idol and demand that he worship it first. He will say that he is a Jew and she will say that all she is asking is that he defecate [and he will not know that this is the worship of that idol]. She will also say that she will not sleep with him until he denounces the Torah of Moses.

Mishnah Avot 5:19
Whosoever possesses these three qualities belongs to the disciples of Abraham our father: a generous eye, a humble spirit, and a meek soul. But he who possesses the three opposite qualities -- an evil eye, a proud spirit, and a haughty soul -- is of the disciples of Balaam the wicked.
How do the disciples of Abraham differ from the disciples of Balaam? The disciples of Abraham enjoy this world and inherit the world to come, as it is written (Proverbs 8:21) "Endowing with wealth those who love me, and filling their treasuries." The disciples of Balaam inherit Gehenna and go down to the pit of destruction, as it is written (Psalm 55:23) "But you, O G-d, will cast them down into the lowest pit; the bloodthirsty and treacherous shall not live out half their days. But I will trust in you."

Professor Louis Ginzberg, "Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue Towards the Apocalyptic-Eschatological Writings", Journal of Biblical Literature (1922), p. 121 n. 18
One may therefore state with absolute certainty that the entire Talmudic-Midrashic literature does not know of any nicknames for Jesus or his disciples.

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (1991), vol. 1 p. 95
For instance, a radical position is represented by Johann Maier, who maintains that not only the Mishna but also both Talmuds lack any authentic, direct mention of Jesus of Nazareth41...

In my opinion, Maier's arguments are especially convincing for the Mishna and other early rabbinic material: no text cited from that period really refers to Jesus. He thus confirms the view I defend in this section.

41 See Johann Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung (Ertrage der Forschung 82; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978). His position, which is argued in minute detail throughout the volume, is summarized on pp. 263-75.

The Accusation
Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement."

The Text
[Onkelos Bar Kalonikus] called up Balaam from the dead. [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Balaam] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Balaam] replied: (Deut. 23:7) "You shall not seek their peace or welfare all your days." [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Balaam answered]: In boiling semen.
[Onkelos] called up Yeshu from the dead. [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Yeshu] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Yeshu] replied: Seek their good. Do not seek their bad. Whoever touches them is as if he touched the pupil of his eye. [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Yeshu answered]: In boiling excrement. As the mast said: Whoever mocks the words of the sages in punished in boiling excrement.

All of the Yeshu references you are listing were about people who lived in different decades or a different century, as you acknowledged in your previous post under "conclusion", it's unlikely that the Jesus of Christianity is mentioned anywhere in the Talmud.

Every historical author mentioned , Biblical or otherwise, were themselves Jews, it's unlikely that any of them held "the Jews" to be responsible for "deicide" of the Christ, this anti-semitic concept came from a much later time and sentiment.

Granted, Jews do not accept Jesus to be their Messiah of prophecy, but that is because he did not possess the expected qualifications of the Jewish Messiah, the Christian hostility associated with that fact came about centruies later and is generally not reciprocated by Jews.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Shila

Why do you keep feeding these trolls?

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@K_Michael

Cogito ergo sum was a phrase coined by Descartes when he pondered knowledge itself; what can he be sure actually exists? His conclusion, "I think, therefore I am" gave him at least the assurance that his own thoughts were proof that at the very least he existed, even if everything else was a lie, or a shadow on a cave wall.

Yes, and its why Descartes is considered by many to be the father of modern philosophy, he established that all we really know directly and in an unmediated form is our subjective experience, which is to say, our sensations, the cause of those sensations can only be known by the manner in which we interact with it, which is to say, subjectively. Immanuel Kant is also considered by many to be the father of modern philosophy for a similar reason, and Kant’s major contribution was to explain to us that the mind is constructive, all we can know is phenomena, the underlying realty that is causing these sensations is no more than a presumption of sorts. The only knowing there can be is a “mode” of knowing. We pretty much have to presume that there is something “out there” causing these sensations we have “in here”, in our mind, but we don’t, and can’t, know it directly, we can only know it by the uniquely human manner of sensing and knowing available to us.

Consequently, what is commonly referred to as “objective” reality is nothing more than the presumed cause of our sensations, and it is necessarily conceptual, a theoretical construct that is developed by the mind, within the constraints of the structure of the mind, and utilizing the raw materials that the mind produces by processing our sensations. What we call “objective reality” is a projection “out there”, of the subjective experience we are having “in here”, in our mind. What we end up with, is not reality per se, it is only the kind of reality that our kind of mind produces. Within the mind, our sensations result in perceptions, which are given form by a process of the mind, and which subsequently, results in concepts, which are further given form by a process of the mind. What we call “objective” reality, is something that results from a chain of inferential reasoning, and it is a uniquely human style of inferential reasoning, inferred from a uniquely human set of sensitivities, with a uniquely human way of processing information. You pretty much have to conclude that the world we experience is completely defined by the mind experiencing it, and it logically follows that a different kind of mind would experience a different kind of reality, and they would live and move and have their being in a different universe. So the resulting “objective” reality isn’t really all that objective, it is nothing more than a mental construct extrapolated from our uniquely human, and completely subjective, way of experiencing reality. Our five primary senses aren’t exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, and our process of thinking isn’t necessarily the only way of thinking, an intelligent being with a different set of senses than ours, and with a different manner of reasoning, a different kind of mind so to speak, would necessarily experience a different universe than the one we experience.

There are some strains of philosophical thought that claim that this is all we can know. You may already be familiar with the concept of P-Zombies, the idea of humans that behave in all the same ways as a true, sentient conscious human such as your self, except they aren't sentient. Personally, I am of the camp that no such thing can exist. Any process complicated enough to emulate conscious thought must itself be intelligent enough to just be conscious.

I agree with you on this, David Chalmers is one of my favorite writers in the philosophy of mind, but when he starts talking P-Zombies, it’s only a matter of time before I just want to kill myself.

Based on my observations of other humans, there is clearly conscious thought on the other end, so the simplest explanation is that they are sentient humans just like me, with their own minds and inner thoughts. (I'm not going to get into simulation theory here, though it might make a good thread on its own).

So awareness and interaction is basically universal among living things, and sentience is (possibly) unique to humans, but how does it follow that humans must have free will? What special property of my neurochemistry makes it less causally determined than a computer algorithm? If there is one, is it evolutionary? Did one hominid a million years ago become the first creature with free will? If not, does that mean all animals with brains have the same free will? All life?

There are a lot of speculative theories about the “special property of my neurochemistry that makes it less causally determined”, while a strong argument that quantum mechanics alone defeats the argument for determinism, it concurrently provides at least a possible explanatory potential for the science behind the neurological correlates of free will.

Quantum mechanics can certainly be interpreted to be telling us that matter is ultimately 'non-material' and non-local, and that mind and matter are interdependent. Free will's requisite freedom involves two components, the existence of alternatives and the ability to choose. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics can certainly be interpreted as providing numerous possible futures, providing the chance, and the fact that matter and energy are represented by probability waves that only collapse into locatable particles when an observation is made, could be explanatory regarding how mind can choose the actual reality from the possible alternatives.

My main thought on the "problem" of free will is that it doesn't matter. I'm not going to start behaving differently if free will isn't a thing vs. if it is. Personally, I haven't seriously cared about the question since I was religious. (The Mormon idea of everyone having "agency" but God still has perfect knowledge of the future is problematic to say the least, and was one of the reasons I left)

There are a large number of scientific studies that say it does matter, quite a bit in fact.

Many studies have been done on the centrality of agency to both our feelings of success and our actual success. When we feel in control of our life outcomes as active agents, we tend to perform better and be happier overall. And the belief in free will is shown to be an important element in feeling in control, feeling like what we do matters has important consequences for how we lead our lives.

Increasing evidence suggests that people’s views about free will bear on their pro-social behaviors, sense of personal control, and general well-being. Experiments have demonstrated that discouraging a belief in free will leads to less helping, more aggression, more mindless conformity, less feeling of guilt, less learning of moral lessons from one’s misdeeds, and less counterfactual thinking about how one might have behaved better. Believing in free will is positively correlated with better career prospects and job performance, and is positively correlated with a host of positive attributes (including: self-control, life satisfaction, subjective happiness, mindfulness, and ambition) and negatively correlated with several less desirable traits (such as neuroticism, lack of trust, and cheating).

These studies point out the positive effect of free will on a variety of behaviors that most people would consider beneficial. It seems that most of us already have a firm belief in free will and so we’re already benefiting, but it is clear that whether or not we believe in free will has a strong influence on how we live and experience our lives.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@K_Michael

Finally, someone who appears to want to have a serious discussion about the subject matter, thank you.

Based on my understanding of physics, it seems likely that the atoms in my brain work in the same deterministic fashion as all other atoms; that is, humans don't fully understand everything to the point that they can exactly predict what any given atom can do, but that with the right knowledge and understanding it theoretically could be predicted in advance.

With all due respect, I’m afraid your understanding of physics is dated, let’s take a look at what determinism really was, and still is, to understand it better. Initially it was nothing but a thought experiment about Newton’s mathematics that was best articulated by Pierre Laplace, who combined the determinism of Newton’s equations with epistemological and metaphysical reductionism to portray all of nature as strictly materialistic and perfectly deterministic. Within Newton’s mathematics, determinism is an abstract theoretical idea that simplifies physical systems enough to allow the use of logical and mathematical methods on idealized abstract "objects" and "events”, but what does this abstraction say about the real world?

Two hundred years later it has not made any credible advance beyond being an abstract theoretical “thought experiment”. By “any credible advance” I mean evidence, evidence that it is something more than an abstracted thought experiment, and there has been none whatsoever, while the counterfactual evidence has grown exponentially during that time.

It’s important to recognize exactly what Laplace (and before him Leibnitz) proposed, it was explicitly that, IF the mathematics we apply to our physical systems is consistent and complete, which is to say that mathematics itself is completely deterministic (Godel proved that it isn’t), AND reality is completely circumscribed by Newtonian mechanics (and it isn’t), AND the motion of every particle in the universe can in principle be predicted from exact knowledge of its position, momentum, and the forces acting on it (and it can’t), AND everything occurred within a single, universal reference frame where an absolute Euclidean space and an absolute time that passes uniformly, are independent aspects of reality (and they aren’t), THEN “theoretically”, all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by purely physical causes such that, there is one and only one possible effect for a particular cause or set of causes, (and there isn’t).

Our two most accurate prevailing scientific theories, Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics are explicit that reality is not the Newtonian World Machine that Laplace believed in, and Heisenberg showed us that even in principle, adequate knowledge of a particle’s position, momentum, and the forces acting on it are impossible, and it isn’t that we can’t know with the necessary precision, it is that the requisite exactness of those quantities doesn’t actually occur in reality. Determinism requires Newton’s autonomous and absolute Euclidean space along with an autonomous and absolute time that passes uniformly, and those presumptions have been proven to be false for well over a century.
Determinism requires the causal closure of the material world; science has not even come close to establishing the causal closure of the material world. The 200-year-old idea that Newtonian physics translates into a mechanistic and deterministic model of the universe was never demonstrated, and in fact, it has proven to be counterfactual many times and on multiple levels. At the bottom of it all, most physical processes turned out to be probabilistic rather than deterministic, they tried but the thought experiment just didn’t apply to the real world, not in practice, or even theoretically.

If we define free will as the ability of a person (human or otherwise) to act in a way that isn't determined simply by the laws of the universe or "fate," then I would argue that humans do not possess free will.
This doesn't seem to match sidewalker's definition of free will, which seems to be dependent on "sentience", "awareness and interaction", and "agency." Agency is clearly just a synonym for free will, so I won't be going into that one.

The reason that this concept has been so hotly debated for centuries is that it is it is a matter of our identity; it speaks to what and who we are as human beings.

For people who believe in Free Will, as well as its deniers, it is the presumptive principle behind all our social interactions, our ethics, our laws, and our civilization. We exist as human beings in a social context which clearly presupposes that we are responsible for our actions, and our experiential reality is one in which we are conscious beings existing as free and responsible causal agents which act in a teleological manner, which is to say, in a purposeful and goal directed way guided by intent, values, purpose and meaning.

Whether it is an illusion or not, I think we should be able to agree that there is a self-evident quality that we are referring to with the term “free will”, experientially known as the human feeling or sensation of exerting the force of consciousness to some effect, which minimally has the following characteristics.

As you alluded, the common understanding of the term “free will” is contrasted with “fatalism”, the belief that we have the conscious ability to affect outcomes in some manner that makes fatalism, the belief that events are irrevocably fixed, a false proposition because human effort can in fact, alter outcomes, illusory or not, free will is the belief that the future is not beyond our control. The belief in free will then, is a a contention that we have the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire which is consistent with an ability to judge some ends as ‘good’ or worth pursuing and value them. If we do in fact have free will, then it follows that we can have some effect on our personal and corporate tomorrows, which is to say that we are free to plan the future, and that our resultant intentions make a real difference in the world.
Free will then, relates to a “perceived control” which is a matter of whether I could have acted otherwise, that implies both the ability to select among alternatives and the ability to determine the means by which we will achieve goals. We can reasonably include the philosophical concept that free will involves the capacity to act with moral responsibility, which is to say that we are morally responsible agents if and only if, we possess free will. Therefore, to say that we possess free will is to say that the unity of consciousness involves the integration of motivating factors such as perceptions, ideologies, and beliefs in a manner that provides a unity of response that consists of the integration of behavior is such a way that there is some non-zero probability that our behavioral outcome could be altered by the choices made by a causally effective self.

What the real debate comes down to then is whether free will has an ontological status of existence which would be indicated by a logical determination as to whether or not the self, as it has been defined, is at times a causal agent as well as an entity that is acted upon by external causes.

Awareness and interaction with the world. Anything with sensory capabilities is "aware" of the world, even if they don't recognize a thing as it is. This goes from the ant that walks on a sidewalk, even if it doesn't realize it's a sidewalk, all the way to humans, to not only have sensory experiences, but tie names and anticipate further experiences based upon those experiences. For example, when I see a staircase in front of where I'm walking, I will anticipate the sensations of stepping down a series of stairs. If I'm paying attention, I can even anticipate how many times I will experience it. If I'm not paying so close attention, I may believe that I am at the bottom of the stairs sooner than I actually am, often resulting in stumbling or falling. Both of these are a fairly universal experience.
The same goes with interaction. A human may interact with the world in more complex ways, but every living thing interacts as well.

Wouldn’t you agree that sensory capabilities and an awareness of the world implies an entity that is aware, this transactional relationship with the world presupposes a “self” that experiences awareness?

The “self” then, is that entity that is aware via a single unified conscious experience of the world, in which particular experiences are unified into a more complex experience that provides continuity of self over time allowing us to relate the continual stream of temporal experiences, recall antecedent experiences, and make comparisons of the contents of experience. In human beings at least, the self is not only aware of the contents of experience, but is also self-aware, there is a “single common subject of one's experience”, which is to say that we possess the quality of “self-consciousness”, we do not only know, we know that we know, so to speak.

Sentience. Sentience is another controversial topic. Some advocates argue that dolphins, octopuses, chimpanzees, etc. are sentient as well as humans. I've even seen arguments that all animals, or even plants, are sentient. Sentience is generally agreed to be an emergent property of intelligence, the ability to not only think about your environment and actions, but to think about yourself and your thoughts. Clearly the language barrier between humans and other living things makes it difficult to determine how much, if any, self-reflection takes place in other minds. A true skeptic might first ask, how can we be so sure that humans are sentient?

You may have seen me make that argument here, I believe a strong argument can be made that in an extremely attenuated way, sentience is a characteristic of life from single celled organisms to human beings.

continued...

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

sentence fragment "a boatload of scientific evidence" that
refusing to support your own claims is not a particularly persuasive tactic

Denying the existence of science and then asking for a link that somehow convinces you that science does exist is about as lame as anything. Certainly not even in the ballpark of persuasive, your use of the word "persuasive" refutes your claim, no free will, no consciousness, no persuading, it's amazing that you can't comprehend that.

The existence of free will is the self-evident default state, if you want to deny the experiential reality of every waking moment and challenge the validity of every moral and legal system found in every known time and place where humans have ever existed, you have to do more than arbitrarily proclaim our experiential reality to be an illusion while presupposing the failed doctrine of determinism. The denial of the self-evident truth of free will is an extraordinary claim, such a claim requires an extraordinary argument backed up by extraordinary evidence, you have provided no argument whatsoever. Just faith based declarations and self-refuting statements.

Free will is self-evident because we are sentient beings, we are aware of, and interacting with our world, we have agency, and self-evident truth is not defeated by arbitrarily claiming “illusion”, or simple denial, that just isn’t how logic works.

I can’t believe I have to argue with you free will deniers that you are not zombies, and try to convince you that you are sentient, rational human beings, it is just amazing to me that I always have to defend you from your own self-directed ad Hominem attacks, I find that aspect of the free will debate to be bizarre.

and I will never understand why you guys think it is so clever.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

False dichotomies are not problems that need to be solved.
a tautology is not a "false dichotomy"

there is only

determined (cause and effect)

and or

uncaused (functionally random)

and or

some MIX OF THE TWO

please explain which "other option" you personally believe i'm overlooking here

Well well, isn't that obtuse and unrelated, your illogical and completely faith based claim that all three eliminate free will free will isn't valid, declarative statements are not arguments, you have made an extraordinary claim which requires an extraordinary argument, just declaring it to be so with no evidence at all is not any kind of argument.

Do you actually think that since you don't actually have an argument that means it can't be refuted, so your point is made?

Is that what all this nonsense is about?

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

a boatload of scientific evidence
please link to this "boatload of scientific evidence" supporting "free-will"

You don't actually read sentences do you, you scan them for certain trigger words that cause a Pavlovian reaction, is that it?

So the sentence fragment "a boatload of scientific evidence" that triggered your bot response, try reading the entire sentence that fragment came from, try to comprehend what it says, and then maybe do the research yourself.

Just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying no no no, isn't an argument, and it doesn't eliminate the vast amount of scientific data about cognitive processes, neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, behaviorism, and a lot more.

Is there supposed to be some kind of hidden message in all this obtuse pointlessness, are we supposed to be able to hear the hand of one hand clapping or what?

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

How do you quantify insects "seeking".
scientific observation

Reading comprehension problem? It's one thing to not understand what we type, but not understanding what you type is a real problem.

You already said it's a private and personal gnostic experience that cannot be verified by science and therefore does not qualify as a "fact", so what does scientific observation have to do with anything?

Also, without free will, how is scientific observation possible, no conscious, no observation, no free will, no science.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Do you think insects are seeking to reduce cognitive dissonance?
insects seek food and shelter and reproductive opportunities

the FEELING of "insects seek food and shelter and reproductive opportunities" is a private and personal gnostic experience that cannot be verified by science and therefore does not qualify as a "fact"

How do you quantify insects "seeking".

Again, why do you think this innane banter is clever?

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

please explain what point you think this obsession with contradiction makes.
seeking logical coherence is the only way to reduce cognitive dissonance

It's pretty clear you sit around trying to think of ways to increase cognitive dissonance, and I just don't understand why you think it is cleaver, is there a point?

Or are we just going to keep doing nonsequitors all day?

Do you think insects are seeking to reduce cognitive dissonance?

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Your argument that reality is either universally determined or universally random is nonsense,
or a clever mix of both

which doesn't solve either "problem"

False dichotomies are not problems that need to be solved.

They are non-sequitors at best.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident, a brute fact.
the FEELING of "free-will" is a private and personal gnostic experience that cannot be verified by science and therefore does not qualify as a "fact"

Our state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps all others in the matter of epistemic authority.

I can see nothing more pointless than using the mind to limit the mind, if you deny our internal reality you subsequently deny logic, philosophy, arguments, your point of view, everyone else's point of view, science, everything that might constitute truth.

And you are simply wrong, there is a boatload of scientific evidence verifying the neural correlates of consciousness, brain function, mapping of thought patterns, as well as psychological testing and the ability to scientifically study individual descriptions given of conscious experience.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

The real free will debate is about whether we have the cognitive ability to conceive of future courses of action, deliberate about various reasons for choosing among them, determine our actions on the basis of such deliberation, and control our actions despite the presence of competing desires. If we do have these abilities, and we can exercise these cognitive abilities to act without our actions being unreasonably compromised by external pressure, then we possess free will and human beings are morally responsible causal agents.
how do you propose we quantify "intent" ?

Already answered, pay attention:

"The very process by which you want to translate qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms."

You seem to think your obsession with measuring qualities to turn them into quantities that are unrelated to the quality makes some kind of universal point in almost any conversation, rather than assuming obtuse is a valid form of argument, please explain what point you think this obsession with contradiction makes.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

When we talk about having control over our actions, the only concept we can apply is that which aligns with human experience. Anything beyond that is purely made up.
so, basically, if you "feel free" then you "are free" ?

even if there is no way to QUANTIFY this "freedom" ?

do children have "free-will" (and as such are solely and fully morally responsible for their actions) ?

(IFF) children do not have "free-will" (THEN) at what point do they receive it ?

how can "free-will" be measured and or verified scientifically ?

do dogs have "free-will" ?

does a spider have "free-will" ?

Do you think this list of questions in some way constitutes an argument, do you think asking these questions supports your contention that free will does not exist?

How does that work, what is the point.

Being obtuse doesn't make any point at all. You still need to provide an extraordinary argument supporting your extraordinary claim.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

I don't think we need to think in black and white terms in regards to free will, we can have free will to act in some circumstances,
i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance.

the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:

1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.

2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.

3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice.

4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.

5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic.

i think it's important to fully comprehend this influence-gap. imagine, if you will, that i am constructing a human being. when the recipe calls for me to add "a dash of free-will" i can't just add any old thing, willy nilly; i have to first construct a proper influence-gap to protect my human from the evil determinism. this would be some container that is impervious to all conceivable influence. i probably have a sound-proof, shock-proof, opaque, air-tight, empathy-proof, magic-proof, momentum-proof, time-proof capsule of some sort just laying around my house, i'll just set that to the side for now. ok, adding an empty box to the mix isn't going to do anything of course so we have to put something in it. since whatever is in this i-gap is supposed to advise me on important moral decisions my selection is of critical importance. well, the most intelligent and moral person i know of is my friend george, so since i don't seem to have a better option, i throw george in the i-capsule and seal him in tight. now days, weeks, and months have gone by and i've pretty much forgotten about george until one afternoon i am confronted with an intractable dilemma. i am faced with a decision with staggeringly profound moral implications and i must make a decision immediately. what do i do? well this sounds like a case for the magnificent george! so i locate my everything-proof capsule on which i have scrawled the descriptive term "i-gap" with my handy wax pencil, and i ask my question. i exhaustively explain all of the known factors leading up to and logical implications of this monumental decision to george, my moral, spiritual and financial advisor, and then i wait for an answer, any answer at all. nothing happens. things are getting desperate, so i beg george to give me an answer, to point me in the right direction. nothing happens. i light some candles and wave a magic wand over the i-gap, but still i can't divine any response from george. i realize there is a problem with the i-gap's design. so i quickly scour my garage for spare parts and retrofit a one way intercom system onto the i-gap so i can hear what george has to say. mind you he still can't hear anything or in any way perceive anything that i have to say, thus preserving the integrity of the influence-gap, but now he can speak directly to me, thus becoming an uncaused-cause. of course george has causes, he was born and raised and had both happy and sad experiences, but i'll just ignore all that for now. george is pretty much an uncaused-cause now that he is housed in the exclusive and luxurious, new and improved i-gap. so i ask george again to answer my plea for guidance. nothing happens. every once in a while george does actually say something but it's usually along the lines of "let me out of this f#cking box you god#amned muth#rf#cking muth#rf#cker!" heh, that george is such a kidder!

obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.

the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.

ipso-facto, no free-will.

The very process by which you want to translate qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.

Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A conscious state includes a desire or intention, it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to the purely physical state of your deterministic argument.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Causality is not fate or necessity.
Causality is simply cause and effect.
the idea of fate does not exist without cause-and-effect

cause-and-effect makes every event not only inevitable but also necessary

Physical determinism is not logically valid because physical science is an empirical endeavor, not a logically conclusive process and the physical evidence has never justified the assumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. This is the misrepresentation of inductive logic as deductive logic. Determinism is a working hypothesis that is logically useful for the scientific endeavor in practice, but it is not a conclusion of science. On the contrary, science has rejected the idea of reality being materialistic and deterministic for over a hundred years now. The old idea that Newtonian physics translates into a mechanistic and deterministic model of the universe was never demonstrated. Science has not established the causal closure of the material world and pretty much has abandoned any further attempts to do so. Relativity theory and quantum physics has shown that ultimately, reality is not deterministic, it is probabilistic and contingent as far as science is concerned.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
the power of acting without the constraint of [CAUSALITY] necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion [FREE FROM ALL INFLUENCE].

You can't define free will out of existence either.

What the centuries old free will debate is about is determining just what it is that people have been talking about for over 2,500 years when they use the term free will, and then determining whether or not we have it. Providing a contextual definition and then running with it to determine if we actually possess it is the whole point of the free will debate. Anything else is changing the subject.

The real free will debate is about whether we have the cognitive ability to conceive of future courses of action, deliberate about various reasons for choosing among them, determine our actions on the basis of such deliberation, and control our actions despite the presence of competing desires. If we do have these abilities, and we can exercise these cognitive abilities to act without our actions being unreasonably compromised by external pressure, then we possess free will and human beings are morally responsible causal agents.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

I've always found the free will conversation pointless. If we have it then it's settled, we can all move on. If we don't have it then not only does that change nothing, but it means that what we're actually talking about is something that no human being has ever experienced so we have no basis to point to it because we have no recognition of what we're even pointing to.
this topic is fundamental

because it is the core of nearly all human suffering

if you deny causality, then free-will doesn't make any sense, because without causality, your actions don't necessarily lead to specific consequences

if you embrace causality, then free-will doesn't make any sense, because with causality, your actions are caused by previous events

and if you mix the two, sometimes causality and sometimes not causality, then you can never be sure which events are caused and which are uncaused

if you decide a specific event is uncaused, then free-will cannot apply, because you cannot cause (with your free-will) an uncaused event

if you decide a specific event is caused, then free-will cannot apply, because you cannot (with your free-will) cause all of the contributing causes that lead to any caused event

sure, people "experience" free-will, but only in the way they "experience" "god's love"

you can "feel" it, but that doesn't mean it is anything more than a mere emotion

Xeno’s paradox does not prove that motion is impossible, and your simplistic semantic parlor game’s false dichotomy does not refute the existence of free will by anything resembling logic or reason. Your argument that reality is either universally determined or universally random is nonsense, the refutation of determinism does not eliminate causality as a feature of reality, it simply is not true that if the universe isn’t totally deterministic then it is totally random, and that is the basis of your argument.

The attempt to deny the self-evident experiential reality of human consciousness and the associated fact that we are morally responsible causal agents is a very extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the unfounded and completely faith-based belief in determinism doesn’t constitute extraordinary evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident, a brute fact. Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid. These two aspects of the approach clearly reject the very basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.

Philosophy is concerned with saying something which is true or significant, science with doing something which is effective. Science is about the real world, grounded in perceiving and doing, the argument against Free Will is completely abstract and invalidates both perception and doing, it is a complete rejection of science as valid, and philosophically it amounts to a rejection of the very basis of truth and significance. Refuting free will leaves no basis whatsoever for a valid argument, for logic, for philosophy, for truth, and for meaning, hence it is meaningless, a pointless word game.

In the end, there is no valid basis upon which the rejection of Free Will can be said to be true of reality.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

Seriously, Public-Choice acts in the same manner as the equally Bible fool Ethang5! Do you think that Ethang5 has gotten under the radar here at DEBATEART Religion Forum since he was banned for good?

Who knows, Brother D. Is it a coincidence that they all joined the forum in the same time frame? I don't really care. They all have the same default at the end of the day.

Hey, I thought I was this Ethang guy, just how many prople here are Ethang anyway, you guys make up your mind will you.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

You still seem to have me confused with someone who gives a crap about what you think,....... Did you want me to be someone who gives a crap? ...... And you were hoping I would give a crap,

I'm sorry, but that’s just not my thing......

oh dear. And there was me thinking you did give crap ethang, Didn't take too long to expose you did it thicko.😂😂

Don't be ridiculoua, I'm not ethang, sure, I am part of the vast deep state conspiracy with you at the center, it's all about you of course, but I'm not ethang, ethang is multiple levels above me in senior management of the Stephen conspiracy.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

Arizona Republican Party used the Big Lie to raise money from their dummy constituents

-->

@Greyparrot

The cost of defending America's Ukraine colony is going to cost Democrats dearly in November.

What a serious fuckup.

Oh no, are you saying the Dems have lost the whakjob Neo-Nazi vote?

Truth be told, we already knew they were voting Republican anyway.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

for instance, the Golden Rule "do unto others", is believed by some to have originated with Confucius. This not to reduce the import in any way.
Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages,

That is my point. Fluffy sayings, old or new are the order of the day when change/revolution is the intended goal.

OK, and why does this upset you so much?

Were you of the opinion that people think Jesus invented religion?
No. Stop being so silly.

OK, and how about you stop being outraged that Jesus said things that had already been said before.

The historical Jesus had a movement following after him,

So had all the others until their time was up and along came a new 'god' on the block when the skies moved into a new age. <<< you should seriously consider that.
I actually had already seriously considered that there were other people with followers both before and after Jesus,
Then you will understand that anyone educated enough will and is able to rally around him supporters, especially from among the poor and disenfranchised (the dead) as I have already explained above. And especially a leader with manifesto of freeing a nation from invading oppressors. This what was expected from a "Messiah". This is what the people expected, and this is what the people had been waiting for. And many had come and gone before Jesus, and they, like him failed miserably.

Finally you make your point, so you think Jesus failed miserably, good for you. Did you want me to be someone who gives a crap? Sorry bud, that's not my thing.

what is the significance of that, how does pointing that out serve your agenda?
I don't have an agenda. But Jesus did. He believed himself to be rightful heir to the throne. And he may well have had a case considering both Herod and the priesthood were all given their positions by Rome. I am simply pointing out that any charismatic leader with promises of a better life will always, and have always, garnered followers especially from among the ignorant poor and disenfranchised .... and let's not forget the superstitious. In Jesus' case the larger part his followers came from among the poor of Galilee the heartland of the zealots who hated Roman and anything Roman. Nearly all of his inner circle were zealots.

OK, whatever floats your boat.

For someone who agreed that we have very little historical knowledge about Jesus, you seem to know more, you have a lot of inside information, where do you get your information, revelation perhaps?

The Gospels are not simply about what happened to Jesus, they are also about what happened to Jesus’ followers, who experienced His continuing presence as a living reality long after his death.
Well, if one wanted to continue a movement after it lost its leader, that is the "vision" and image I would be promoting.
And you think being a catalyst for a movement that two thousand years later is two billion strong, amounts to “no change”,
I asked you what Jesus had changed in the time of his short ministry? Which was nothing. After the crucifixions the puppet king Herod was still in place and so were the puppet priests. Palestine was still under the Roman yoke and Jerusalem under Roman occupation. What came centuries after is completely another story. And nothing to do with the living historical JEW man that believed he should have been king of Jerusalem.

So there was this thing that happened where Jesus’ followers continued to follow Him for two thousand years and grew in number to over two billion, but you think that Jesus had nothing to do with it? It was just a coincidence that they were focused on a guy named Jesus, kind of like the amazing coincidence that Lou Gehrig just happened to die of Lou Gehrig’s disease. Got it.

The historical Jesus didn’t found the Christian church by his ministry, the church came into being after His death, it is the resurrection that is the starting point of Christian religion.
(A) And I believe that the Jew Jesus would have been absolutely appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name.
I would agree with that speculation, I think early Christianity was a movement within Judaism that was tolerated until the destruction of the second temple, afterward it was seen as a threat to traditional Judaism and rejected as having moved far enough away from traditional Judaism to no be a separate religion.
Well going by the very little we do know about Jesus the man; it is worth remembering that we know a lot more about Palestine in the 1st century.

While we’re at it, let’s also remember that we know a lot more about 6th century BCE Greece than we do about Pythagoras. OK, your turn, what else is worth remembering?

An honest reading of what he actually said and did indicates that he was a Jewish rabbi who walked in the tradition of the prophets, was a teacher, a healer and wonderworker, a man that challenged prevailing systems of purity while associating with the marginal elements of society.

I can agree with some of that. But it is not unusual for say a politician to come out on the side of the poor and disenfranchised and that claims to " feel you pain" is it? Seriously what better and more fertile place to gather new recruits? And why? because this is where one will find the numbers. There are more of "us" than there are "them", that is why?
Is this conspiracy scholarship, do you think Jesus was trying to get elected? What office do you think he was campaigning for?
The highest office in the land, KINGSHIP FFS , how many times!!!! He was trying to garner supporters that would support his claim to the throne. And a close reading of the scripture will show that he had friends and supporters in high places... and low places that believed or at least agreed him to be rightful heir.

Hey, wait a minute, is this a Trump thing, are you doing the Gospel according to Fox News, is that why you are so hot and bothered?

There is no historical evidence that he ever intended to establish a new set of religious dogmas or found a new religion.
I agree see (A) above. It was those that came after and maybe the few remaining members of the original movement. and we have to consider that which Jesus himself is alleged to have said " I have not come to change the law".
Yep, I’ve considered that, and the point you are making again?

(a)It appears that you are trying to make an argument of some kind, it’s just not clear what it is you are arguing. If you were to have made you point, what would be the conclusion?
I am. My argument is that the man Jesus, because his time was approaching, came out of exile to claim what he believed was rightfully his. I also believe he was building an army to take what was his by force if he couldn't reach his goal through diplomacy.

This army, by any chance, they weren’t called the “Proud Boys” were they?

But II cannot prove it no more than you can prove Jesus literally and physically walked on water.

Why on earth would I want to try to prove that?

His teaching "astonished" those who heard him.
Maybe it did. But again, this is nothing new. He was speaking to a new generation of a nation that had been under one foreign rule) or another for hundreds of years and heir gods by the time Jesus made his appearance there had been many "messiahs" come and go.
OK, and you were thinking that there are people who think that Jesus was the first person in history to “astonish” those who heard him? How doesn’t pointing out that he wasn’t serve you agenda, what is the point?
You keep saying I have an agenda. I don't. I am simply putting my own theory and opinions as I see them. These theories and opinions come from the scriptures themselves. And NO, I don't believe Jesus was "the first person to astonish" anyone. I thought I'd made that clear. There had been plenty of pretenders to the title of Messiah before and since. And in this regard, Jesus was no exception.

OK, so you have strong negative feelings about Jesus, got it. And you were hoping I would give a crap, I'm sorry, but that’s just not my thing.

There could be an entirely different answer to this if ,Jesus survived the cross,
OK, do tell, what changed only if Jesus survived the cross?
This thread is not the place to discuss that. It would take a completely new thread and a lot of hours. But that shouldn't concern you in the slightest, should it? If you are of the belief that a three-day old rotting and stinking corpse came back to life and then took himself off up into the sky?

Obviously, you are having a conversation with someone besides me, and it is someone you are very upset with, the question becomes why are you having it with me instead of them, do they intimidate you, are you afraid to tell them what you think?

which is what I believe.

Do you think that you are the first person in history to believe that?

I know I'm not. I also know that there are better qualified people than myself that have proposed this theory<< before I was probably even born. So you can set your veiled sarcastic slights aside if you wish to discuss this subject further with me.

You still seem to have me confused with someone who gives a crap about what you think, perhaps you should tell them why you are upset instead of me, presumably they do give a crap.

Also, how does your assertion relate to your BOP game,
In what sense? Surviving the cross?

is there a burden of proof that Jesus survived the cross,

(1) There is. And just like the burden of proof relating to the existence of an historical biblical Jesus, the 'evidence' is very scant. (2) The difference here though is that I can admit that I cannot prove my beliefs, or opinions and I always have done. Unlike the devout that believe their "faith" has all the answers, when it doesn't in the real world. "Because god or the bible says so" just does not work for the 21st century mind.

OK, so this person you are afraid to talk to and are so upset with, can I presume you are describing them here?

I'm sorry, but I'm not doing any role playing either, why don't you try this BrotherD character, he's really really into role playing.

or do you have a “get out of BOP free” card, or maybe you are wearing your cloak of BOP invisibility?

If you wish to continue this conversation with me, stop being so fkn childish and read (1) & (2) above.

You’re the one that likes to play the BOP game while claiming it doesn’t apply to you, and not being a gamer myself, I’m just trying to understand how your BOP game works, do you wear a BOP proof vest when you play maybe?

How about the person you are so upset with, do they maybe play the game?

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Stephen wrote: And what is it that you believe Jesus changed during the short time of his ministry?

almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the Gospels,
Which is very little. When we boil it down is all we are left with is a collection of sayings and are probably not necessarily original to Jesus-

Are you saying Jesus didn’t say these things, or just that he wasn’t the first person in history to ever say these kinds of things? Why is that important to you?

for instance, the Golden Rule "do unto others", is believed by some to have originated with Confucius. This not to reduce the import in any way.

Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages, why is it significant to you that Jesus didn’t invent the concept?

And besides these sayings, there is an old, rehashed story about a dying and rising god of which there had been many. For example, Dionysius was said to be a “Son of God”, was born of a woman that had no sexual relationship with a man, came on a donkey, said to have performed miracles, and was killed and resurrected, and became immortal.
Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, known as the saviour.
Buddas' mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a blessed child destined to be a saviour. Horus, Apollonius, Hercules etc etc. The list is long. So again, nothing new or original.

The experience of the sacred, the experiential reality of human beings we refer to as Spiritual, is common to all peoples in all times, in every place and in every time we have found evidence that man existed, we have found evidence that man was a spiritual being. It is a universal characteristic among peoples and cultures that did not have contact with one another; it arose spontaneously in all places and all times. Man is always found relating to the whole of reality with his whole being. This leads to no other conclusion but that a Spiritual orientation is the natural state of human beings.

Were you of the opinion that people think Jesus invented religion?

I’m struggling to discern a point to all this, can you be a little more explicit about what point you are trying to make?

The historical Jesus had a movement following after him,

So had all the others until their time was up and along came a new 'god' on the block when the skies moved into a new age. <<< you should seriously consider that.

Well Captain Obvious, I actually had already seriously considered that there were other people with followers both before and after Jesus, what is the significance of that, how does pointing that out serve your agenda?

The Gospels are not simply about what happened to Jesus, they are also about what happened to Jesus’ followers, who experienced His continuing presence as a living reality long after his death.
Well, if one wanted to continue a movement after it lost its leader, that is the "vision" and image I would be promoting.

And you think being a catalyst for a movement that two thousand years later is two billion strong, amounts to “no change”, OK, and how does that serve your agenda? It’s unclear what you are trying to sell here.

The historical Jesus didn’t found the Christian church by his ministry, the church came into being after His death, it is the resurrection that is the starting point of Christian religion.
(A) And I believe that the Jew Jesus would have been absolutely appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name.

I would agree with that speculation, I think early Christianity was a movement within Judaism that was tolerated until the destruction of the second temple, afterward it was seen as a threat to traditional Judaism and rejected as having moved far enough away from traditional Judaism to no be a separate religion.

An honest reading of what he actually said and did indicates that he was a Jewish rabbi who walked in the tradition of the prophets, was a teacher, a healer and wonderworker, a man that challenged prevailing systems of purity while associating with the marginal elements of society.

I can agree with some of that. But it is not unusual for say a politician to come out on the side of the poor and disenfranchised and that claims to " feel you pain" is it? Seriously what better and more fertile place to gather new recruits? And why? because this is where one will find the numbers. There are more of "us" than there are "them", that is why?

Is this conspiracy scholarship, do you think Jesus was trying to get elected? What office do you think he was campaigning for?

There is no historical evidence that he ever intended to establish a new set of religious dogmas or found a new religion.

I agree see (A) above. It was those that came after and maybe the few remaining members of the original movement. and we have to consider that which Jesus himself is alleged to have said " I have not come to change the law".

Yep, I’ve considered that, and the point you are making again?

It appears that you are trying to make an argument of some kind, it’s just not clear what it is you are arguing. If you were to have made you point, what would be the conclusion?

His teaching "astonished" those who heard him.
Maybe it did. But again, this is nothing new. He was speaking to a new generation of a nation that had been under one foreign rule) or another for hundreds of years and heir gods by the time Jesus made his appearance there had been many "messiahs" come and go.

OK, and you were thinking that there are people who think that Jesus was the first person in history to “astonish” those who heard him? How doesn’t pointing out that he wasn’t serve you agenda, what is the point?

Seeing how the historical Jesus reacted to the violence, corruption, and political and religious oppression he faced may help us all to see how the "Christ force" might act in us today and with what passion and unambiguous focus we may challenge the rather similar circumstances we face.
Again, nothing new. All new commers preach "a different way". Some come to build on the back of others or discard what is no longer applicable to the age of the time.

So back to my question, what did Jesus' change during his short ministry? The answer is- nothing.

LOL, if you think there is no evidence that Jesus had an impact, that two billion followers two thousand years later count as nothing, then OK, whatever floats your boat. Still don’t quite understand the point you are trying to make, please complete the following sentence. Jesus changed nothing and therefore _____________ (fill in the blank)

There could be an entirely different answer to this if ,Jesus survived the cross,

OK, do tell, what changed only if Jesus survived the cross?

which is what I believe.

Do you think that you are the first person in history to believe that? I ask because this concept seems to be so important to you.

Also, how does your assertion relate to your BOP game, is there a burden of proof that Jesus survived the cross, or do you have a “get out of BOP free” card, or maybe you are wearing your cloak of BOP invisibility?

I'm not a gamer, so you need to explain these things to me.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ

Will you define for us -radical - in this context.

Jesus was a revolutionary change agent; and in fact he was a radical in every sense of the word.

And what is it that you believe Jesus changed during the short time of his ministry?

He came out of relative obscurity, but the way he lived and died profoundly changed the world.

Ancient history is necessarily a record of those who witnessed historical events, and almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the Gospels, which were put into their current form slowly, over a period of about three hundred years, a history that was shaped by the Christian experience. The historical Jesus had a movement following after him, after his death this movement grew exponentially and it was that movement that produced the Gospels. The Gospels are a history of the manner in which Jesus was experienced, both during his life, and after His death, so there are two voices speaking to us from the past, that of Jesus, and that of His followers. The Gospels are not simply about what happened to Jesus, they are also about what happened to Jesus’ followers, who experienced His continuing presence as a living reality long after his death. The historical Jesus didn’t found the Christian church by his ministry, the church came into being after His death, it is the resurrection that is the starting point of Christian religion.

Consequently, you cannot look to the historical for Jesus answers about what followed his death, Jesus was a Jew, he had no opinion about Christianity because Christianity did not exist during his lifetime. Consequently, understanding the social and political context of the historical Jesus in conjunction with an honest reading of the Gospels does appear to challenge many of the cherished and comforting beliefs held by Christians today.

An honest reading of what he actually said and did indicates that he was a Jewish rabbi who walked in the tradition of the prophets, was a teacher, a healer and wonderworker, a man that challenged prevailing systems of purity while associating with the marginal elements of society. There is no historical evidence that he ever intended to establish a new set of religious dogmas or found a new religion. The Jesus of the New Testament is not always omnipotent, or omniscient, and He does not appear to think of himself as divine, He rarely spoke of himself and His message was not about believing in Him.

His teaching "astonished" those who heard him. The things he did and said caused his contemporaries to think of him in completely new dimensions. There was something in this life that caused those who knew it best to reach the conclusion that it was divine in nature. Historically speaking, there is a boatload of contention about whether or not he actually rose from the grave but no one can reasonably doubt that his spirit jumped dramatically to life after his death.

It is certainly not my intent to contend that what was implicit in His life and was made explicit through theological discourse four hundred years later is not an image of truth; It is not to say that He was not God and Savior. It is only to say that these divisive things do not matter to me and I do not believe they are more important than his message.

Jesus almost never spoke about the detached metaphysical constructs so many focus on; apparently those kinds of intellectual disputes just weren't important to him and I choose to believe this was because He understood how these matters could digress into divisive contrasts and disunity. His words, his actions, and his life had nothing whatsoever to do with divisiveness and disunity.

Many have rejected the life and teachings of this man primarily because of the disputes over dogma and because of the unlikely historical accuracy of many of the doctrines held by the various Christian churches today. To many, the prevalence of sometimes vehement disputation and boastful contrasts in His name directly conflict with their understanding of what the Man and His teachings represented: consequently many have understandably turned away, throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

An argument can certainly be made that the historical vision that is emerging provides a great advantage for those who have turned away as well as for those of completely different faiths. By allowing those who cannot embrace his tremendous impact because of disputations regarding his human or divine status, this historical vision can allow many people to concentrate on what he actually said and did. Maybe the emerging historical vision of Christ could eliminate the petty pursuits and trifling quarrels and through fellowship with the internal life, cut across political and ecclesiastical boundaries by penetrating beneath the external surface of all of mankind’s divisive religious doctrines.

Seeing how the historical Jesus reacted to the violence, corruption, and political and religious oppression he faced may help us all to see how the "Christ force" might act in us today and with what passion and unambiguous focus we may challenge the rather similar circumstances we face. Paying attention not to disputes about his divine status but to what he actually said and did could allow us to get past our intellectual detachment and take his actions and words more seriously while applying them more practically and with greater urgency. His word and his actions indicate he was proselytizing unity through the power of love and concerted action for justice and compassion. Jesus was inviting us to seek the Kingdom within, a house with many mansions, because he directly experienced the glory of God and he believed that all humans had at their core the spark of divine consciousness. He sacrificed his life to ignite it in us and that is what made him our Savior.

What if all you had to do for everybody to agree that you were a Christian was to follow the teachings and life of Jesus Christ and live in harmony with the same universal laws that he lived in harmony with. What if Christianity had no problem with others believing that the central fact of His life was the complete realization of a conscious union of this man with the God of his understanding, and that it was his realization of his oneness with God that made Jesus the Christ? The Bible gives no indication that he ever claimed for himself anything that he did not claim for all mankind and He spoke of his remarkable achievements as the normal outcome of a state to which all of us could attain. By completely realizing this, first for himself, and then by pointing out the great laws which are the same for us as they were for him, he has given the whole world an ideal of life, an ideal we can attain to here and now, one that we could not have without him living and dying the way he did.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ

Will you define for us -radical - in this context.

Gladly.

Within the social, religious, and political context of his day, Jesus was a revolutionary change agent; and in fact he was a radical in every sense of the word.

Jesus was absolutely anti-establishment, radically liberal, and vehemently critical of the authoritarian establishment, aligning Himself instead with the poor, the oppressed, and others the establishment considered social outcasts. Jesus fiercely defied the ultra-conservative religious, political, and social power structures of the day, bringing a radically liberal theology to the masses, healing on the Sabbath, blessing outside of the rigid purity system, forgiving the sins of those condemned by the establishment, and calling for the liberation of women and minorities from their social, political, and religiously sanctioned oppression.

To the existing power structure, Jesus was a subversive that taught people that they do not need to conform to the strict and orthodox views of God, religion, and life that the corrupt establishment perpetuated. He condemned the ruling elite's greed, violence, their glorification of power, their amassing of wealth without social balance, their judging of others, their lifestyles, and their beliefs. He ferociously rebuked the religious right of His day for embracing the letter of the law instead of the Spirit, calling the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites and vipers, and they assassinated Him for it.

Jesus was imparting a vision for a completely new world order, one based on compassion, equality, inclusion, forgiveness, tolerance, peace and love. His egalitarian vision for mankind was diametrically opposed to the authoritarian political, social, and religious structure of the day. He demanded nothing less than the complete transformation of all the laws and conditions of his world into those of the Kingdom of God. He wanted to empower all human beings with their divine identity in that Kingdom and he vehemently exposed the naked corruptions of the establishment's various forms of external power, especially the gender based and grossly patriarchal misogyny of the times.

He "astonished" people with a transforming vision in which all the lies of the corrupted establishment were unmasked and he called for profoundly radical changes to the existing social and political power structures. He was dangerous because He was shaking the very foundations of all of the false constructs of the corrupt establishment...and the people were listening to him.

This political, social, and religious revolutionary was imparting an egalitarian vision that was absolutely lethal to the conservative ruling elite of the day, both the Roman occupation's imposed order and the corrupted religious "mediators". It is for this that the ruling powers conspired to kill this dangerous Rabbi, the Romans crucified him to make an example of him for anyone who had been listening to his incendiary vision of equality and concerted effort for justice and compassion for all.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

What city is in the most sports-related anguish?

-->

@Mharman

Q: What's the difference between Sidewalker and the Stanley Cup?

A: In the last thirty years, I've been to Canada.

All of the cities of Canada have suffered a thirty year anguish.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Shila

But Jesus clarifies the relationship between the Father and him.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

John 14:7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

How does that “clarify” it, what is the relationship, on face value the statements are conflicting.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Jesus, fictional, mythical or otherwise is undeniably a historically recorded character.

Whether the accounts of his life and activities are vaguely true or not, is impossible to know.

Though I would suggest that most interpretations are embellished and exaggerated, such that we can only regard the biblical tales as myth or fantasy.

Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ, as powerful in actions, presence, and legacy as he was, could only be expected to incite widely varying interpretations of his life.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Shila

1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?

He is the most written about person in history, the only written evidence comes from Christian sources, but they wrote about Him and there is no reason to think there was some kind of conspiracy to lie about His existence. You could likewise argue that Thales, Pythagoras and Socrates never existed because the only evidence we have was what other’s wrote about them, and since all the sources were Greek, maybe they made it up, but why would you? Just because written sources from antiquity necessarily come down to us from the culture that they existed in, is no reason to doubt them.

To claim that the most influential person in history never existed would be an extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary evidence, and there is none.

Did Jesus claim he was God?

The same historical evidence that He existed, also states that he explicitly denied being God.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.”

Matthew 24:36
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.”

Mark 10:18
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

Mark 13:32
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Luke 22:42
saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."

John 4:34
Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.”

John 5:30
"I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.”

John 6:38
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

John 7:16
Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.”

John 8:42
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 8:50
“And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.”

John 12:49
"For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.”

John 14:24
"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.”

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

-->

@Shila

Genesis 2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

You've argued that the Genesis story is literal, if that is the case, then please explain the literal physical existence of a "tree of knowledge"?

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Are all shootings on tv shows inherently racist?

-->

@n8nrgim

If the victims are black it's racist. If the shooter is black it's racist. If the shooter and victim is black it's racist. If neither is black it's racist (for leavin them out)

Is it just this one, or are all your posts inherently idiotic.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Right wing politics

After analysis, I have come to the conclusion that this thread is NOT about right wing politics.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Alex Jones, truth teller to the GOP, must pay 1 billion to families of Sandy Hook victims

That is so great, what is disgusting is that he has that kind of money from being a whackjob lunatic, sad comentary on our society.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Imagine a neo-nazi that won't leave his mother's basement because he is so terrified of POC

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

-->

@Stephen

do you want to formally debate it?

Nope. I am quite happy here where I gave give my opinions and where anyone can dive in at will. And share the sometimes-awkward facts that theist like to avoid.
Such as the universally accepted fact the BOP is on, s/he that makes the claim.

You are making the claim here, the burden of proof is on you...unless of course, you are wearing your cape and BOP proof vest.

That BOP subject has been done to a death on this forum many times.

But please don't be shy, knock yourself out and start a new BOP thread of your own arguing to the contrary if you are in disagreement, you don't need my permission "kid".

Nor here to debate, here to play your puerile game, got it.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Just wear a hat with Liz Cheney kissing Ana Navarro. Problem solved.

I already have a hat, even better, from a distance it looks like a MAGA hat, but when you get close enough to read it, it says "Made you look, Black Lives Matter"

I love that hat, especially the look on their faces when they read it.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

OMG, every day I am more ashamed to have ever been a Republican, the party just keeps sinking lower and lower, and Abraham Lincoln is rolling over in his grave.
Pretty sure they feel the same way about you too, Not too many McCainiacs in the Republican party left.

Thank God for small favors, I don't ever want anybody mistaking me for one, if they do I'll deny it..

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Please tell me why it is a crime to urinate in public if you do it quietly against a wall or tree.

Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville took a huge crap on television yesterday, and he didn't get arrested.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Please tell me why it is a crime to urinate in public if you do it quietly against a wall or tree.

-->

@Shila

--> @RationalMadman
I just find the whole idea inhumane, not only the homeless but especially so.

I am absolutely as a cop I'd feel sick inside to have to arrest a desperate person who pissed onto a bush or whatever.

I am not discussing exposing one's genitals in a very public manner, I am discussing specifically the crime of pissing in public, urination in and of itself.
The crime is indecent exposure, and determination of that is up to law enforcement's discretion, generlly speaking, and more often than not, I think cops aren't arresting you for taking a discrete piss.
This is more a problem for the homeless.

I suppose threatening them with three meals and a cot isn't much of a deterrent.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in: