Sidewalker

-->

@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:

-->

@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:

-->

@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:

Senator: Dems back reparations for those who 'do the crime' | AP News

-->

@IwantRooseveltagain

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.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

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

-->

@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.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Anything that requires experience to prove is not objectively true, and cannot be proven to be so.

-->

@Intelligence_06

Our science and morality is built upon one "fact": That experience matters, and that what you see is true. That simply isn't true, as we cannot prove anything based on experience: How do we know that invisible aliens aren't pushing all these objects to create the illusion of Gravity? We do not know. Even though the current physics may not be "true", it is plausible, or that we think it is true, or that it is subjectively true. There is nothing preventing someone with what we call schizophrenia to actually see objects "with mass" to float upwards without seemingly any force exerted on it. In fact, we cannot conclude that those ones with schizophrenia are seeing the real world as it is, and we just have the same symptom of schizophrenia. How do we determine normal vision and abnormal vision? By social categorization, or what we "think" is right versus what we think isn't. Even how we see the world cannot be proven to be true, let alone speculation based on it.

You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky. Even though we tend to believe our experiences and more often times than not, you see the objects behave exactly like how the old people tell you through the physic textbook that they are going to behave, it is through YOUR vision. You can only prove that this time it worked, subjectively, but never that it WILL work next time, objectively.

Objective truth based on experience is equal to nonsense because objective experience is impossible and experience is not objective. Anything we consider true, based on experience, are, at most, subjective truths.

Is this just an argument about semantics, are you just bunged up about the definition of "objective", because there's a lot of that going around.

If you reject experience and science, then how do you function, on what basis do you attempt to be reality adjusted?

Do you really approach a shopping cart fearful it will push you against the wall. You really don't believe what you see? Are you concerned what you are experiencing is a schizophrenic dream? When you see a busy street, do you wonder if your eves are decieving you and become fearful that a truck is going to run you over any second?

I'm serious, if you really believe what you have typed here, how can you possibly function? When you go ourside into the real world, how do you cope, what happens? What do you believe to be true and why?

You typed the post, why do you believe your post is true, and why?

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Whatever floats your boat kid, you've tried to sell your BOP game to me before too, DR is a coward, do you want to formally debate it?

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

MORAL DILEMMA

-->

@bibliobibulimaniac

Say the zealot killed because he thought it was the right thing to do, and he felt he was 'helping' his country, whereas the other individuals killed because he didn't want to be punished.

Both of them killed. Is there one that is worse?

Yes, the context, intent, and motivation matters, especially in cases of murder. That's why the law specifies different degrees and types of murder, with different punishment.

Do you think a hate crime murder, a mercy killing, a soldier killing in battle, and killing in self defence, are morally all the same? All of them killed, isn't there one that i worse?

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Right wing politics

-->

@badger

Did you really need to embarrass me like that?

LOL, sorry man, I'm sure you would have seen it sober.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

DeSantis' appearance with Biden after Hurricane Ian has shifted Florida's races | CNN Politics

-->

@Stephen

This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
WTF?

That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.
Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret textbook of denial and deceit. And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.

You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me. It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.
Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.

Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradesecret textbook of denial and deceit. And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.

I gave the post links so you could see for yourself that his standard lie about context is just that, a lie.

If you aren't interested in the truth, didn't even bother to look, then your BS opinion is irrelvent.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

Right wing politics

-->

@badger

ThankWhiteySlaves. TheyWillSuck. Just. He's an obnoxious fucking loser really. I'm drunk lol. I wish I could think of something fucking sick burn for his dumbass acronym. TheWhiteSerpent. Something.

TWS = The White Supremacist

Created:

2 years ago

2

Posted in:

Biden helped the Republicans in Florida

It may be the right thing to do, but we all know no Republican would have done the right thing.

And where is Obama, when is he going to hit the campaign trail, he has the most potential to influence the midterms, is he on vacation or what?

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

MORAL DILEMMA

-->

@bibliobibulimaniac

It certainly matters what the different reasons are, but in general, I think "intent" is what matters most, murder is more wrong than an accidental death, a hate crime is worse than self defense, premeditated is worse than temporary insanity. That is why intent is so important in determining punishment in our legal system, trying to do the right thing with bad consequences is unfortunate, but not morally wrong, intending to bring about bad consequences is morally wrong.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

@Shila

Yes, we know. Why do you keep posting this? I already explained to you, literally sentence by sentence, what this means and how it shows that your and Sidewalker's claims about what I said are full of shit.

She’s posting it because she can see you are a liar, everyone can see that, you aren’t fooling anyone. You are a liar, the fact is, no matter how many times you lie about it, it is still a bald-faced lie.

Let’s take a look, in context, here’s the lie you were called on, and this time I’m providing the post numbers so you can’t fall back on your standard double down lie about context, this is your lie:

#746
Sidewalker: But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.

Double_R: I would debate this claim if I had ever made it and/or believe it. I don’t and never have.

Now it’s time for you to make up lies about only a few of these posts, all from one thread, where you made the claim that you now say you never made.

#145.
Double_R: This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.

Let’s see how you weasel out of this, you claim that if it’s about the God you believe in then the burden of proof is on you, why do you now say you have never claimed “faith in God carries the burden of proof”, that is clearly a lie.

#156
Sidewalker: Almost all adult believers are conceiving of God to be transcendent, this idea of it being a matter of faith and transcendence is not really a secret, Atheists who pretend they don’t know that are either completely uninformed about the subject matter, or have an agenda and this disingenuous misconception is nothing but a tactic.

Double_R: This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.

I very carefully explained that Belief in God is a matter of faith, and you insist that “This is why the burden of proof is on you”, why do you now say you have never claimed “faith in God carries the burden of proof”, that is clearly a lie.

#188
Sidewalker: Belief in God is a matter of faith, there is no “burden of proof”.

Double_R: Anyone who makes a claim carries with it, a burden of proof.

It couldn’t be any clearer than when I explained it yet again, that belief in God is a matter of faith and you respond that there is a burden of proof, and now you never made the claim “that faith in God carries the burden of proof”, that is a lie.

#333
Sidewalker: Perhaps your scholarship could include using a dictionary;

Faith:
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:

Double_R: This has absolutely nothing to do with anything a I just said.

I even tried to give you the dictionary definition of faith that says that it is not a matter of proof, and you tied to say that faith and proof has absolutely nothing to do with anything you said LOL, I gotta give it to you kiddie, you really do buy into the whole Trumb vibe that says “if you’re gonna lie, then lie big, and do it obviously” LOL, but if you think anyone can’t see through your blatant lies and misrepresentations, you are even more incoherent than we already think.

Face it, you are a liar, and you lie to cover up the fact that you just don’t get the whole logical argument thing, and nobody is fooled. That is why you won’t formally debate, you know you will get your ass handed to you again.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

'Incandescent Evil': The Story Of Roy Cohn From McCarthy To Trump (allthatsinteresting.com)

-->

@Shila

--> @Sidewalker
This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof

WTF?

That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.
See your post#736

--> @Sidewalker
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.

Rules of your illogical BOP game?
Your reply Double_R below:

Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.

The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof. Clearly you don’t, which is why you pretend it’s a game.

Why do you keep lying even after you are exposed?

He's like Trump, when he's caught lying he doubles down and the lies just get bigger.

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

How many abortions has Herschel Walker paid for?

-->

@IwantRooseveltagain

Is that what will happen if he doesn’t win this Senate seat - he will be destroyed? What qualifies Herschel Walker to be a Senator exactly?

He's an idiot, a compulsive liar, a hypocrite, and he's been on TV a lot, that qualifies him to be a Republican Senator, or a Republican President for tht matter.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

Trump’s mentor was gay - Do Trump supporters know this?

Roy Cohn, The Man Who Taught Donald Trump Everything He Knows

"Roy Cohn has been called the most malevolent force in 20th-century American politics — and that was before mentoring a young Donald Trump in mafia-style politics."

Created:

2 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
And the very next post you never said that LOL
Calling me dishonest while selectively editing our conversation to take my words out of context. WOW.

Let’s take a look at what I actually said and the part you strategically left out:

Post 736:
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.

Rules of your illogical BOP game?
Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.

The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof.
I listed two different assertions, one about morality and the other about god being existent. I then stated “the latter” was a factual claim. I was talking about the latter of my listed options, not the latter of what you said.

This is English 101.

And in my last response I also explained that this is why context matters in conversation. I didn’t catch that you were talking about asserting nothing more than a statement of one’s own beliefs because that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation you were chiming in on and frankly is a stupid thing to talk about on a debate site. No one here cares what you believe if you are not willing to assert and defend it.

It is no wonder you believe the silly things you do, especially when it comes to understanding those you disagree with. You do not pay attention to what others say and you disregard any part of the discussion that doesn’t suit your agenda.

This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof

Of course you backpeddled in subsequent posts, that's Double R Dishonesty 101.

You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me. It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.

I'm not going to bother to go find all the times you've asserted that to me because you will just do what you always do, make up definitions, obfuscate, and lie....unless you want to formally debate it that is, if you have the unmitigated gall to bald face lie about it in a formal debate, then I'll go find all of the times you've whined and cried about it to me.

Don't worry, after you lose the debate you can always fall back on your "Trumpy routine" on losing debates and claim the vote wasn't fair.

OK, now it's time for you to say I'm not worth your time and attention, so, GO.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof

And the very next post you never said that LOL

But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.
I would debate this claim if I had ever made it and/or believe it. I don’t and never have. You are having a whole conversation in your head.

I'm sure everybody here fell for that dishonest BS, good job kiddie.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

If you read my post, I said, asserts belief in God,
And if you read the exchange your post was written in response to, you would know that this conversation has nothing to do with “asserting belief in God”. It’s about morality and for the most part God has been assumed for the sake of argument.

Context matters in communication. Take note of it and these conversations will go a lot better.

But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.
I would debate this claim if I had ever made it and/or believe it. I don’t and never have. You are having a whole conversation in your head.

Illogical, incohernt, and dishonest, the Double R triple play, how many points is that in your game?

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.

Rules of your illogical BOP game?
Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.

I read the exchange, it's like all of your exchanges, you debate the debate rather than the subject matter of the debate, you assert your own subjective definitions of words, your own subjective logic, and usually, like in this post, you confuse epistemology with ontology. All you ever seem to say is that these are the axioms of my faith, believe in me and don’t question it.

If you read my post, I said, asserts belief in God, and as with every exchange we've had, the difference is belief in God based on faith, it's only in your puerile game that there is a burden of proof.

The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof. Clearly you don’t, which is why you pretend it’s a game.

Someone who asserts belief in God as a matter of faith, is making a factual claim that they believe, it's an epistemological statement, it asserts the existence of faith, your passionate fundamentalism keeps you from understanding that. Sorry kiddie, but your special little pretend definition of atheism doesn't change the basic principles of logic, and it doesn't make you the only peron who can play the BOP card, that's just in your invented game's rule book.

You've called into question the very notion of truth by turning your claims to truth into little more than power plays, when you claim that what you say is true, all you are really doing is claiming status for beliefs that advance your fundamentalist agenda.

But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

You assert God. That’s not a truth statement

You choose God because that’s what you value. Values are subjective. Always have been and always will be.

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.

Rules of your illogical BOP game?

Created:

2 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Why are atheists like water?

Atheists, like theists, cannot walk on water.

No, it's because Jesus can make them both wine.

Created:

2 years ago

2

Posted in: