Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It was then that truth found me. And it didn't try and prove that it was the truth and nor did it try and demonstrate that it was the truth and it did not validate itself and it didn't even task me to believe it was the truth.
We believe something because we have become convinced. We can be convinced by good or bad reasons, but there is a reason for belief nonetheless. It sounds to me you became convinced for no good reason. This may work for you, but it has no persuasive power for those who are not starting with belief and working backwards.
You are on that journey. that is one reason you visit this site and others probably. You might not call it a journey for truth or perhaps you do. but you haven't found what you are looking for yet - or else you wouldn't be here
I am on a journey - on that we agree. However, I passed the part of the path you see as the ultimate destination. I moved on because, well, for many reasons, but generally because I found the picture painted by Christianity was flawed: People aren't born broken, sex isnt 'dirty', absolute certainty isnt reasonable, etc.
Enjoy the scenery, but don't look too closely, my friend - it's illusory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Does anyone find it concerning that I made a thread about liberty > safety, and coal responded to multiple people with multiple posts to [basically] call me a stupid, humorless, tone-deaf, snide, arrogant, ignorant, conceited, vapid, incoherent, sad, pathetic and sanctimonious cunt
... I thought maybe he found a thesaurus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, what is the alternative? That God created everything - but then left us to muddle on our own.Which alternative is that? There are many definitions for god. And, I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here - you accept the Bible because it is internally consistent (not necessarily an indication of truth) and not accepting it is irrational (I disagree - explained in more detail below).I asked the question because there does not seem to be an alternative. not one that makes any sense. You can't beat something with nothing.
You're missing the point. Internal consistency and assertions of 'no other alternative' does not make something true. You've not established you have something.
I don't know is not an alternative.
As I suggested previously, when other options are unfalsifiable or incomplete "I don't know" has the advantage of not leading us further down the wrong path. If you're lost in the wilderness, the first thing you should do is stop - not pretend you know the way.
As pointed out above, the alternative is not necessarily 'nothing'.Well it is - until it can be articulated. It is nothing but nothing.
Being able to put words to a notion does not make it something - at least not in the sense that it is something true.
True, changing your life is not necessarily evidence it is truth. Yet if the changes in your life are positive and beneficial then this is consistent with it being a good thing, even if it not demonstrably true. For the truth to ring - then you would need to provide some kind of objective measuring stick to know whether it is true or not.
Again, changes in one's life - even good/positive changes - is not evidence of truth. The number one rule of AA is "call upon a higher power". Let's say someone calls upon Freddy Krueger and beats their addiction...is Freddy Krueger suddenly real?! No, of course not. Positive changes might be associated with powerful motivations, but those motivations don't have to be rooted in reality. Hope and belief can be powerful tools, but they are not measuring sticks. They are sticks with carrots.
And I suggest this thing - this being at odds with the universe is actually - being unreconciled with God.
This is a description of the human condition, and it is a hopeful notion that it can be fixed by merely believing the right thing. The fact that believers still suffer insecurities like everyone else is evidence against this notion though.
I am sure that none of this resonates with you - but I am simply reflecting on my own journey.
You are correct - it does not resonate with me, but I do wish you a safe journey. May you find what is actually true.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
for the simple fact that no black person is “clear” in skin tone and/or physical description.
What do you mean by that? White people aren't "clear" in the transparent sense. For all we know HCA used that adjective to refer to unblemished skin - which can be applicable to dark skin tones. I think you're making a lot out of nothing.
Create your own damn storyline
That is literally what Disney did in 1989. Basically, you approve of the major changes to the storyline in 1989 and disapprove of the minor aesthetic changes in 2022.
Perhaps you should strive for consistency so that your righteous indignation doesn't seem so petty and racist.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
When characters are written specifically to be/represent a certain race/ethnicity and sex (M/F), actors must reflect that in order to accurately reflect what the author/creator of the character intended.
The little mermaid wasn't specifically written to be a certain race. It was Disney that chose to represent Ariel with a light skin tone, but Hans Christian Anderson merely described her skin as "clear". So, it's really too late to appeal to originalism....especially when we consider the story is drastically changed - Ariel got the prince, didn't turn into sea foam or become a children of the air in the end. The Disney version is drastically different than the original. So, why is dark skin tone out of bounds?
Created:
-->
@Elliott
Ian Fleming invented the character and according to his books, which I read many years ago, James Bond was English and white. Fleming even objected to Sean Connery playing him because he was Scottish.
...and yet, Sean Connery was one of the best, if not THE best, Bond.
That being said, there is a valid argument in sticking with the template the author intended. Me personally though, I see skin color makes little difference to the character. He is still a massively skilled secret agent with fancy gadgets.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Hm, is James Bond supposed to be a 'single person, or a position?
I've understood 007 to be a 'position' just like his CIA counterpart Felix Leiter ...who has been recast more times than Bond (including POC).
Though I'm pretty used to Bond as a white British guy,
'What you're used to' is not an argument, my friend.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I'm not really sure in makes sense for James Bond to be black,
Why not? Would the 00 program not have black agents?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
How does the character's skin color change the essence of the character? I couldn't care less if Ariel or James Bond are played by POC and see no good reason why anyone else should either. Sans objective evidence Mermaids and fictional secret agents come in only light skin tones, there is nothing objectively wrong being done here.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Nothing substantive has been provided yet again. My position stands in the wake of your fallacies. I see no reason to drag this attempt at a conversation any further. Adieu.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
None of your points have any relevance to the substance of my argumentation.
1. Strawman - Adjectives don't work like that. "Unavoidable" modifies "crime of humanity". There is no adjective modyfying "punishment". You'll need to address my argument rather than the strawman you've built.
2. Red Herring - I can make assumptions for the sake of argument or not.
3. Ad Hominem - my reading comprehension has nothing to do with the point you are not addressing.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Where is the lie?When you called punishment unavoidable, obviously heaven is how you avoid it.
I said (per Christianity) the *crime* (original sin) was unavoidable, and it is not obvious heaven exists, much less that anyone can get there.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
All you do is contradict yourself, in the first post you say punishment is a given for imperfection and is UNAVOIDABLE and the latter you backpedal by saying it could be avoided through God. Make up your mind and start making sense please.
I said (according to Christianity) the crime of imperfection is unavoidable. No matter what a human may do they will always be guilty of original sin. Where is the lie?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Post 309Nowhere in that post was anything uttered about heaven, come correct next time.
Context removed yet again. I would encourage you to consider what that reply was addressing: your standard of morality (love and desire) and how that standard was justified (heaven). I specifically referenced your standard (and its justification) in that reply.
All of this obfuscation on your part does nothing to persuade or counter the post you keep avoiding.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
AgainPlease link to when you’ve said this before.I've said "again" a few times in this thread...I'm sure your browser search function could handle this request.I was referring to the subject discussed that made you say again (if it wasn’t as already obvious) not just the word itself (context dude 🤦🏾♂️) let me break it down for you, you said:
Context is the point - you continually remove context in your replies. I removed no context from your reply. If context is actually important to you, then I point you to the context of this thread. Shila is following the conversation quite well:
Created:
-->
@Tarik
AgainPlease link to when you’ve said this before.
I've said "again" a few times in this thread...I'm sure your browser search function could handle this request.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@Tarik
Again don’t speak for me, and if God punishes for imperfection then how do you explain the concept of heaven “mr skeptical” because paradise doesn’t sound like much of a punishment to me.
Again, according to your religion and your holy book, heaven is not available humanity without belief. Imperfection + God = heaven. Imperfection on its own = punishment.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Pugilists stand in the same boxing ring because fighting from different venues is pointless.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Pugilists stand in the same boxing ring because fighting from different venues is pointless.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Why are you using an argument you are most Skeptical about?
I am trying to make sense of my interlocutor's views. Assuming his views for the sake of argument allows he and I some (temporary) common ground.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
1st of all I NEVER conflated imperfection with sin. 2nd you haven’t validated anything. 3rd the only dishonest one is you for not providing any support for any of your claims.
1. You don't need to - it's explicitly spelled out in your holy book. 2/3. I apparently gave you too much credit when assuming you had passing knowledge of the Bible while pointing out the conflict between your explicit views and core Christian doctrines. Link Original sin is thought to be a built-in corruption of mankind - an imperfection which makes humanity worthy of punishment by default. So, yes, according to your religion and holy book, God does punish for imperfection.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
A typically trite semantics-based riposte that misses the point completely.Perhaps deliberately so.
Indeed.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Imperfect is not synonymous to sin
In the context of this conversation, imperfection and sin are synonymous. One only need consult the thread to validate this. Once again, your dishonesty is plain for all to see.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Don’t know what “reasoning” your referring to but it has nothing to do with me, hence why I asked you not to claim on my behalf.
You stated "if God were to punish simply based on imperfection, then every last one of us would be doomed including you". Is original sin not a doctrine you subscribe to? If so, how do you figure your deity doesn't punish imperfection?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Wrong, please don’t speak for me.
There is quite a difference between speaking for you and pointing out flaws in your reasoning. I was doing the latter. Do you plan to provide any defense?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
if God were to punish simply based on imperfection, then every last one of us would be doomed including you.
Imperfection is the unavoidable crime of humanity and punishment is a given. This is thought to be man's natural state sans Jesus per Christianity. Jesus wouldn't make someone perfect, only forgiven. So it stands to reason, your moral standard allows immoral people to be considered righteous. Ie. Wrong can be right.
Add in to that, we can never see who meets your standard while we are alive (or ever) - it's pretty useless as a standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
How much in-vitro fertilization do you think was occurring in the first century?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You can't have it both ways - either Jesus was born of a virgin or he had a biological father. Both cannot be true at the same time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The fact that Jesus was a male suggests he had a father who contributed the Y chromosome.
There is no DNA of Jesus so far as I am aware. At best, we can say he presented himself as male.
Luke even points to Joseph son of Heli as father of Jesus,
Well, this is awkward.
I (non-believer) must point out you (believer) are taking that verse out of context. The author was describing the consensus of those who didnt have his 'insight'. The Gospel according to Luke describes Jesus would be born of the virgin Mary. It cannot be true that the author both thought Jesus was born of a virgin and also that Joseph was his biological father.
Luke 1:30-38
And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” But Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth herself has conceived a son in her old age, and she who was called infertile is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, the Lord’s bond-servant; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
Well if someone disagrees with metaphysical solipsism being the most likely, they were free to show me why. None of them did.
That is attempting to shift a burden. Why would anyone need to disprove what hasn't been proven? Also, there were other issues with your argument which you failed to address. Namely, atheism isn't a worldview. Ie. Someone can believe in anything (accept gods) and still be an atheist.
I also don't hold theists or atheists to any sort of standards,
Sure you do. If there is no standard, there can be no hypocrites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
Assuming parthenogenesis, Jesus would have been female. That would make Jesus trans. 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
the evidence can be verifiedThen verify it
How would that help you? Are you going to verify my verification?
That would mean all the u238 in the earth should be almost completely gone, since it has a half life of 4.46 billion years.
No, it would mean about half of u238 has transmuted to a different element.
I would much rather err on the side that finds dinosaurs in North America (e.g. real, undisputable, physical evidence) and u238 measurements detected globally
Neither of the 'sides' you're describing are denying dinosaurs in NA or that U238 is common.
Because, if uniformitarian principles are true, then it would be physically impossible to find dinosaurs in North America, since they did not "appear" until about 250 million years ago.
North America split from Africa 200 million years ago. What's physically impossible about dinosaurs living atop a tectonic plate while it splits and moves away from Africa?
My mother is a young earth creationist (which I assume you are). I've had all these discussions before, my friend. You're being misled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but the point is, you don't have toCan you, right now, prove a zircon fragment is 4.3 billion years old?bingo
Sir, you have to wait for numbers to be called before exclaiming "bingo". 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
but the point is, you don't have toCan you, right now, prove a zircon fragment is 4.3 billion years old?
Well, not right this second... I'm still in bed, but the point is the evidence can be verified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
You're asking about things that no one has an answer for. Is there an internal/external reality? I don't know, but I function as though I share reality with others (what's the alternative?) I like the taste of steak in this reality though 😁.
As for the BoP, I have none - I've not claimed to have solved Hard solispism and I'm not trying to persuade you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nope, I want to question your beliefs, but as I pointed out, all of you BOPers know it's a meaningless game, you are willing to serve, but you won't step up to the plate.
If that is the case, then perhaps you should start with asking about my beliefs rather than getting upset because I don't believe what you (dubiously) think I should.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting that you can only have "justified & true" "knowledge" of physical objects ?
No. You asked for an example. I've given two that are easy to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but when they tell you that a zircon fragment is 4.375 billion years oldyou sort of have to take their word for it
....but the point is, you don't have to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you maybe have another example of "knowledge"perhaps something that doesn't require specialized equipment in order to verify ?
I've provided 2 examples. One requires no specialized equipment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Irrelevant. The collective knowledge of humanity isn't null and void if I personally haven't verified all of it. If evidence warrants a true belief, it is knowledge.it sounds like you have FAITH in the modern priesthood
You give actual priests too much credit. Preists cannot justify their core beliefs or show them true. That is not true of, say, geologists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Sidewalker
so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS
I guess he would rather question reality than his beliefs. 😆
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
have you yourself measured the atomic mass of Sodium ?
Irrelevant. The collective knowledge of humanity isn't null and void if I personally haven't verified all of it. If evidence warrants a true belief, it is knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because something is defined by measurement does not mean it is true by definition - it is true by observation. The definition is dependent on evidence not the other way around. It seems to me you are suggesting anything with a definition cannot be knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
can you perhaps provide an example of "justified & true" knowledge ?The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.that's an example of a tautology
I disagree and do not follow your reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
can you perhaps provide an example of "justified & true" knowledge ?
The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STORIES IN THE BIBLE
I believe the Bible has a story about a worldwide flood. Anyone can read the Bible and recognize my belief is justified and true - ie. knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
As you said, any position can be held of faith, Theism and Atheism are both matters of faith.
Atheism (lack of belief) is not a claim and has no association with hope in unseen things.
To say you simply lack belief is to say you simply have no knowledge, its an assertion of total ignorance of the subject matter.
Lack of belief is not an assertion of total ignorance. That is hyperbolic. The absence of belief follows from an absence of reason for belief.
I provided the definition of faith, the argument is that, by definition, faith does not carry a burfen of proof.
Hand waving away a burden of proof doesn't make unjustified claims "knowledge". If your claims about reality can't be substantiated, why should anyone accept them? More importantly....why do you?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The number of gumballs is either odd or even, that is not absurd reasoning.
That is not what you've been advocating. You are suggesting dismissing a claim of even (based on faith alone, not evidence) is equivalent to making an alternative claim of odd. That is absurd. That is not how logic works.
Created: