Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Yes. I'd describe it as 'logically incoherent'.Do you believe it is possible to describe a concept that is logically incoherent?
Now what did you really mean to ask?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
a few secular ones such as China and Syria) where this word is an insult indeed
Probably N Korea too... good company for the US to be in, what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree, but I think it is more suprising how well we can communicate given that we must have aquired our vocabulary as kids by hearing words in context and working the meaning out! An interesting case is that in Uganda (where I lived many years) Ugandans speaking English would ask me to 'extend'. Extend what? I wondered, but I soon worked out it meant 'budge up' or 'shift along'. How 'extend' acquired that meaning no-one knows, but even highly educated Ugandans with perfect english use 'extend' in that sense. I've even caught myself using it when I came back to the UK!
I'm very conscious of the problem of mis-communication so I try really hard to use plain,ordinary language.
I think it's always a good idea to ask youself if an argument is over concepts or the words used to describe them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
....in direct contrast to those of America (eg. equality, liberty, democracy).
If America is so keen on equality and democracy, why were there still issues with letting blacks vote upto the 1960s, 200 years after the Bill of Rights? Americans have so little faith in democracy they think they need guns to fight their own government.
Maybe the CNs do embody 'American values' and the fine-sounding principles of the founding fathers are just hot air - except for the 2nd amendment,of course.
I doubt there is another country in the world where 'liberal' is an insult.
In other words, I think you are right to worry, Skeps, because there is every chance the CNs will win. We Brits have a queen who rules by divine right (for now), but we don't have a 'religious right', thank G... er, goodness!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Doesn't take much imagination if actually do it!
But - as I understand it - you are suggesting I can 'paint' those pixels with meaning.. so should I think you said 'my hovercraft is full of eels'?
Created:
Posted in:
In quick and dirty terms, Euclid's 5th has 3 flavours:
Given a line and a point,
1 - Flat/Eucidean - 1 Parallel line through the point
2 - Elliptica/Riemannian - 0 parallel lines throuh the point
3 -Hyperbolic/Lobachevskian - infinite number of parallel line through the point.
1 is always true in the abstraction of 'school' Euclidean geometry and if space is flat.
2 or 3 is true dependoing on how space is curved.
Given that the curvature space is governed by the distribution of mass, it is likely that there are regions of the uniniverse that have space that is flat, 'postively' curved and 'negatively' curved. That seems to imply which flavour of the 5th is true depends on where you are - ie that 'the truth' varies from place to place! If we suppose reality to be 'what is true' is it, er, 'true' that there is only one reality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't see much of a problem with the process of extracting meaning being less than 100% effective - the problem I see is that if you are projecting (or 'painting') meaning on to the pixels constituting this sentence (for instance) how I could communicate anything at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Gladly. I hereby demostrate that I wouldn't argue against it by NOT arguing against it!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Guys, can you please start calling each other names, like immediately? BEcause I'm not comfortable with the straight reasonable discussion you're having even though I think you disagree. There needs to be more personal attacks, how else will I decide which argument is better?
I think they've agreed that one can't know the unknowable. I wouldn't argue against that.
@3rutal
Your brain deciphers and extracts identifiable (QUALIA) WORDS from a meaningless smattering of pixels.
However some 'smatterings of pixels' on a screen are just random dots. Only a tiny subset of possible patterns pixels are meaningful words sothere is a diference between words on a screen and random dots on the screen, because your brain can extract meaning from the former but not the latter.
Your brain projects MEANINGFULNESS (QUALIA) into those WORDS. Like spraying paint onto a blank canvas.
The meaning of the dots you are reading is there even if you don't read it - the meaning being the meaning of words I am typing now. Your brain does not paint those dots with their meaning; I put the meaning there - your brain retrieves it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Science has no intent.
You used the word first! In #31.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That might be what it ends up doing, but it's intent is to discover the truth. But (to quote Pilate), what is truth?Science has nothing to do with "truth"; its intent is actually to develop a set of codes that allow us to make accurate predictions about observations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If you think these passages are fictional, then these various arguments are rendered void. If Stan Lee says Captain America captured The Red Skull, we can't really argue.
I doubt that the specific episodes are historical, but the ethical framework of the text is the same whether they happened or not.
t was a different time with different attitudes - killing the men and enslaving the women in war was the norm; the text reflects the customs of its time even if the specifics are dubious.
As for the parallel to Nigeria, the mass kidnapping of girls to serve as 'wives' by Boko Haram still goes on. If it can happen in the 21st century, it could certainly occur then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We are star-stuff?
Apart from the hydrogen atoms! The scientific account of creation is a far, far more wonderful story than any theogian invented - and much nearer the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
One does wonder what rights captured 'wives' had. In any case where could they go? All their menfolk had been slaughtered and their homes razed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
If you have seen a mumuration of starlings - live or on youtube - you'll know it is one of the most beautiul things in nature.
It would be very easy to imagine the kaleidoscope of flowing shapes is the work of some over-arching choreographer and get very 'spiritual' about it. To someone of a less fanciful frame of mind - like me! - it's beautiful and awe inspiring. I could watch them for hours! But I know there isn't a grand choreographer - all that beauty of movement comes from each bird obeying a simple rule. That allows us to do simulations that are remarkably life like.
I think the 'anti-materialist camp' don't get that materialism doesn't preclude appreciation of the 'soft' stuff. I don't the EV finds murmuations more beautiful or 'spiritual' than I do - the difference is I don't have a false notion of the origin of that beauty. That those pattern derive from the operartion of simple rules is a lesson in how wonderful the world is without god.
How facile and uninteresting it is to imagine that there is a choreographer in the sky!
Ofcourse I am using mumuration only as a familiar eample. The principle is applies all through - materialism is not the enemy of spiriuality - it is only the enemy of nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Big 'ed.I'm the one stating that these parts are apart of the elephant,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But the gospel writers continually reference the OT and don't repudiate the older books. The non-appearance of yhwh in the NT may be due to the simple fact the nt was wriiten in greek, not Hebrew and also a taboo had developed around yaying or writing 'the sacred word' - many Jews (and others) write 'G-d' as a consequence. 'Kyrios' (Lord) is used in the NT and the greek septuagint to reference God. Christianity was - at roor - a heretical Judaic sect.
For those reasons I'd say the Christian God is taken to be identical to the OT yhwh in mainstream (ie non-Marcionist) Christiology.
But it's a metphysical puzzle for an atheist whether one non-existing god is the same as another non-existing god! But as characters, they are very different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The worst aspect of accepting an atheist mentality. Mostly that it's so limiting for the individual, it also forces them to not accept anything outside materialism.
Utterly wrong. The only thing atheism does is stop people from imagining a non-existent super-being is involved or responsible. Spirituality doesn't have to involve a god.
Atheism requires one to explain and understand things in terms of the real, not the imaginary. If spirituality can only be understood and explained in terms of the imaginary, that could only mean spirituality itself was imaginary.
Atheism means you can't get your spirituality and meta-ethics 'off the shelf' - you have to work at it. Atheism is not the easy option - theism is for those who like things on a plate - theists just have to learn the rules of their church.
Atheists aren't limited to materialism... they are only 'limited' to doing without a god figure, which is no limit at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Maybe it ties in with the MAGA thing.. it is 'make america great again', harking back to that mythical golden age...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
@RoderickSpode
As I said earlier, I don't think that 'Christian Nationalists' really want to impose Christian values. They want to turn the clock back to an imaginary golden age (about 1955!) when things were much simpler! I suspect that, in reality, 1955 was pretty bad, but in mind ofthe CNs is the picture of an America of happy families wuith the man the unisputed head of the house, his wife a dutiful home-maker and the kids well-scubbed and respectful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
So then the United States is guilty of kidnapping whenever we capture a prisoner of war?
A modern POW is generally a combatant and would be repatriated at the end of hostilities. The US did not have the war aim of of killimg all the men and enslaving the women!
We see something similar happening in Nigeria today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
J6 referred to 'consensus reality' - I am not sure peer review is relevant!
I doubt that 'consensus' is the best word for what she meant, but it's not the worst either. I'd assume she intended to refer to the 'apparent universe', in which matter interacts according to physical laws, some of which we have good approximations of. It's a reality where time goes inexorably in one direction, from past to future and where there are 3 significant dimensions of space. It's a reality where the laws of thermodynamics apply, causes precede their effect, and where actual ininities and paradoxes don't exist.
I am not saying any of that is 'true of reality', but it describes the reality that most people believe in - which I think is a good reason to accept calling it 'consensus reality'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
How do you know what objective reality is?
'Knowledge of objective reality' is a perpetual aspiration! Currently science is predicated on the assumption that an objective reality exists, and that knowlege of it can be gained by rational means. We feel we are closer to understanding (or 'knowing') reality than were 100 years ago - and we expect to be even closer in another 100 years. But I suspect most scientists don't think we will ever know all of reality - all we can do is carry on chipping away at it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That's more or less that I was getting at..! It relates to my 'niceness' posts - they are hooking into the idea that if its Christian it must be good, and that not supporting their backward-looking policies is 'unchristian' and bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
My problem is that CN seems to be pushing not so much a Christian agenda as a deeply conservative one. They don't seem too interested in 'love thy neighbour' or '"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"; they do seem very keen on anti-feminism, 'anti-gayism' and anti-Darwinism!
I think 'social conservatism' and 'religious conseratism' are blurry categories, but I'm seeing social conservatives using religion.
I know what I mean but I'm not expressing it very well... !
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
One could easily and logically conclude that all knowledge is insignificant.
What does it mean for something to be significant? Could you give me an example of something that is significant and something that is insignificant?
Created:
-->
@blamonkey
Have you considered making stuff up? It's only 'cutting out the middle-man'.
Created:
Posted in:
As soon as we clear up what 'consensus', 'valid' and, indeed, 'reality' mean we can get down to the real issue!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't think Christian Nationalists are in favour of them either!I'm certain you condemn kidnapping, rape, and sexual slavery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I realised that was probably your reason a bit too late - there's not much love and forgiveness going on in Acts 5!!The reason I brought them up is because it's a situation similar to severe incidences involving punishment in the O.T
Yhwh's old ways are certainly to the fore there - in those early days ideas were were still in flux. Many early Christians were after all Jews, with the idea of god gained from the OT.
Created:
Posted in:
Christian doctrine is that Jesus established a new covenant between mankind and God, replacing the old covenant between God and Israel.
A theological issue that raises is the relationhip between God and Israel. When the new covenant was established, either the Jews continued to have a relationship with God under their old covenant (dual theology) or they lost their relationship with God (replacement theology).
Christian Preterists point to the destruction of the Jewish state around AD70 as evidence that god did indeed break wth the Jews. The historical/social/poitical issue is whether dcoctrines such as preterism are a) causes of or ) caused by anti-semitism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
What do you make of the NT incident involving Ananias and Sapphira?
Not sure what this has to o with Marcion, but you have to start reading at the end of Chapter 4 of acts:
acts 4: 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
It seems inescapable that Christianity was originally a 'end times' cult. Rich members were expected to sell their possesions so all members could await the new age, which was (presumably) thought to be imminent, perhaps a matter of days or weeks away.
'Joseph' does so:
36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Ananias and Sapphira famously do not!
It looks to me that there may have been a 'two-speed' arrangement - the 'hard-core' gave up their wealth (such as Joseph and A+S aspired to join)and other believers who were merely superstitious:
13 No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. 14 Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. 15 As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
My view is that the writers of the Bible wrote plainly and simply and meant what they said. I don't mean what they wrote is true,no decoder rings or insipid apologetics needed.
but it is what was believed - or what the writers wanted to be believed by their audience - ie the mass of lay Hebrews/Jews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
It's just latest covenant.
The latest revelation - to Mohammed - is however not accepted by Christians, just as Jews did not accept Jesus. </sarcasm>
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
That is the accepted Christian view... but amongst the religious I think the Jews might see things differently!
I try to look at things in historical terms, particularly why some ideas come to dominate and others fade into obscurity. Christian theologians have certainly put a lot of effort into reconciling the testaments. The point is that (for example) 'type/antitype' theory is only necessary because the testaments are so differnt in tone - the OT has to be justified somehow!
On the other extreme a different early Christian group - the Ebionites - used the OT as their scripture and rejected the teachings of Paul which forms the basis of the NT!
Created:
Posted in:
I've always had a soft spot for Marcion of Sinope! Wikipedia puts it thus: "Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament."
I don't propose Marcion was right - I don't believe in gods, whether singly, pairwise or multiple! But Marcion didn't baulk from stating the obvious - the OT and NT conceptions of God are completely different and incompatible.
yhwh's origin lies in the traditions and culture of the (very) ancient middle east. Yhwh is a tribal chief with magical powers. An ancient Hebrew - or anyother ancient mide easterner - knew there were many gods (more or less one per tribe or city). Gods looked after the interests of their particular people in exchange for ritual worship. It was essential to keep your god 'sweet' or it would inflict -or not prevent - disaster, such as a famine, drought or defeat in war.
The gods of the ancient middle east had little interst in individuals, before or after death. The were gods of entire nations.
The NT God reflects very different social and cultural conditions. 1st century Jews weren't a primitive nomadic tribe - they were a politically powerless people under the occupation of foreign powers. yhwh would not hold with 'the meek shall inherit the earth'!
But Marcion's ideas didn't catch on, and Christians have been saddled with the baggage of the OT ever since.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Unfortunately its not possible (afaik) to correct the @ line of a post. Of course I intended the remark for Athias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You post pretentious nonsense.Ah, the tone argument. "When all else fails...," I guess.
It's not an argument - it's an opinion. I wouldn't expect you to get that right... you haven't got anything right so far! I wonder if you know you are posting verbose crap - I think you may actually believe you are some kind of 'logic genius'. If so, you are in a minority of two... you and your ego.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
You're new! According to Mopac, the Ultimate Reality is God.Wtf is the "ultimate reality"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So would you like to explain the relevance my "posting style" has in this discussion?
You post pretentious nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I'm fairly sure he believes that he perceives God.
That would explain some of his posting style... if you can plainly see (ie 'perceive') something - such as God - you are not going to be impressed by any one who says it doesn't exist - ie atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
what you are saying is that god exists because we have the idea of godNo.
Then what are you saying? You said "one cannot perceive that which does not exist, therefore everything one perceives must exist" was axiomatic. Do you stand by that? It seems to be saying that because god is perceived then god must exist, but you just said that isn't what you meant.
It is hard to criticise your argument when it's not clear what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
The author of Revelation did not expect his writings to be appended to the other books of the bible, so his words surely only apply to the book of revelation, not the whole bible!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
'X' and the 'concept of X' are distinct. It is obvious that in many, many cases the concept of X exists but X does not existYou think this makes sense, but it does not. The concept x does not hold without x. You mean to say that there's a distinction between a material x and an immaterial x, and that an immaterial x can exist even if a material x doesn't. This isn't necessarily true, but it provides a more substantial line of reasoning to your original statement.
If that is what I meant then I would have said that!
Underneath your excess of verbiage what you are saying is that god exists because we have the idea of god. If don't think that is right, nor do I think it is wrong in an interesting way - so I'll stop there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
'X' and the 'concept of X' are distinct. It is obvious that in many, many cases the concept of X exists but X does not exist - Sherlock Holmes is an example.The irony is, your understanding of that which is "real" (material) is almost, if not entirely based on that which you claim "isn't real" (immaterial.) Explain to me, while incorporating logical consistency, how that is.
The concept-of-God exists in all our brains/minds, but that is not much help for determining if God per se exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As a general guideline, Matthew and Luke agree when they can follow Mark but diverge on points where Mark is silent. To me that implies M and L are independent expansions of Mark. Beyond that observation speculation is all that is possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Imagine if the guys who wrote the book were just making it up?
The one thing that the 'guys who wrote the book' may not have made up are what Jesus said. The Gospel of Thomas is nothing but a collection of one sentence sayings with no narrative at all. Many of those saying are - or resemble - verses in the canonical gospels, such as
55. Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."
In Thomas there is nothing to suggest Jesus claimed to be or was taken as an actual divinity.
13. Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."
Nothing is rigorously provable, but I think the balance of probability is that Jesus was an ordinary human. In that sense he was 'real', but after his death (and possibly before) his followers were ascribing god-like supernatural powers to him and wrote fanciful narratives around his actual sayings and (non-miraculous) actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You seem a bit on the fence on this one...I don't want to have to remind you again that is my job....both accounts could be true. ..alleged suicide...
Created: