Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I wonder if a split-brain patient is half-way between a normal individual and conjoined twins. it seems very much that each half of a brain can operate almost (but not quite) as well as an entire brain.
I don't think what happens in split-brain patient is any stranger or more mysterious than what happens in normal brains- but that is only because what happen in normal brains is so strange to begin with!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Muffins
Formal debating doesn't float my boat either.
Whether it's amateur dramatics, 'trekkies', DnD or debating some people take their hobbies very seriously. Forum debating is not watered down formal debating - it is different animal altogether. Formal debates about who is the best advocate, not what side of the issue is right or wrong, true or false.
At it's best a forum debate allows a topic to be explored from many differnt perspectives and everybody learns something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I interpret that as meaning you don't believe in god but you don't claim to know whether there is a god or not.I'm an agnostic atheist.
For my benefit,
a) Do you think it is possible to ever know if god exists?
b) Do you think it is possible to know anything (other than trivia like defintions and tautologies)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Sounds like a historical anomaly due translational errors.
So does 'ultimate reality'!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
As in 'where there's life there's hope', I presume.
As to how much DDO is worth, I think the dollar value of a website is related to how attractive it is to advertisers. Debate sites tend to have a small a number of visitors (<20) who return multiple times and are probably not big spenders. i don't think it's worth much to advertise to our liitle group of misfits and social indequates.
An ad on Facebook will be seen by half the world's population - on DA it will be seen by you, me and polywitch.
On sites like fb and twitter one interacts with the site, not other members directly. A million fb users represent one milion interactions, but in a forum format members interact with each other directly so n members produce 9! interactions. Only 9 members are needed to get over a milllion possible interactions. Thus sites like DDO and DA can never grow beyond having a few active members before it either blows up or fissions.
It is simply not possible for a group of 200 people to mutually interact the way half-a-dozen can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The icon of St-Christopher is one of the most astounding images found in the Orthodox Tradition. Showing a dog-headed warrior saint..
I don't think that Orthodox Christians think - or thought - St Cristopher had the head if a dog, but it is most certainly your lot -not Roman Catholics- that depict him that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Retrning to Damiel, the interpretation you favour is not the only one that can fit the text. i reject that interpreation because it relies on supernatural fore-knowledge. Why do you reject theinterpretation i prefer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Lower races, you mean?I just try to understand what happen with people that have beliefs, like Christians or atheists.
You have beliefs. You believe you have bigger balls than people with beliefs.
Perhaps you do try to understand people who have beliefs - in which case you have a long way to go.
Created:
Posted in:
It has everything to with the choice between being rich for a few more years and going to hell forever or being poor and going to heaven forever.
Of course that is superstitious claptrap because no-one goes to heaven or hell, but it is the essence of the earliest form of Christian teaching.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
because not everything that exists is God, though God is what gives it existence.
That god gives reality existence is normal theology.
i'm not sure you get that my problem is ony with your assertion that one cannot deny god without denying reality.
If god is the (alleged) sustainer of reality (not reality itself) then denying god is to deny that reality needs a divine sustainer; it is not denying reality per se. Your understanding of the term 'ultimate realuty' is not quite right. but 'that which gives reality existence' is close to its usual theological use,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Put another way, what evidence does a miraculous flood produce?Millions of fossils...over the earth. Mudslides and pressure burying these animals would cause them to fossilize.
That is what a non-miraculous flood would do. The effects of a miraculous flood would be whatever God wanted them to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
According to the gospels, Jesus taught that the present world order was about to end and a new world order about to begin. The man's money would do him no good when it was the meek that inherited the world, would it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree. (IFF) god exists (THEN) everything that exists is god.
If you define 'everything that exists' as god (as it seems Mopac does) then that becomes tautological.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
If Noah's flood happened God must have intervened a lot more than is explicit in the text. It is obvious that sloths could not walk from South America to the Middle East and back on their own!
Whatever we know about normal floods does not have apply to miraculous floods, and that implies evidence is irrelevant. Put another way, what evidence does a miraculous flood produce? Whatever seems to cast doubt on a flood is easily removed by supposing another miracle. There is no need to explain how sloths, lemurs or koalas found their way home home - that can be shrugged off as just part of the miracle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
When the young man approached Jesus the change to the new world order could be mere days away. It might be as long as a few years but it was not very long away at all. In that context, Jesus advice makes a lot of sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church does not believe that St. Christopher has a head of a dog.Apparently, this is a popular way of depicting him in Roman Catholicism.Why? I neither know or care.
St Christpher is not represented with a dog's head in RC iconography, but he is in Orthodox iconography.
But I can accept you are not an expert in icongraphy- I am sure you are expert on everything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I was wondering if you know why it is so important that the passage is presented as not merely a prophesy but a prophesy of AD70.
God's original covenant was with the Hebrews/Jews, but at some point a second covenant with all mankind was established.
The critical thing about AD70 is that it was when the Jewish state and people (represented by the 2nd temple) were destroyed in a war with the Romans. Israel would not exist again until 1948.
By setting the date of the new covenant with God as AD70 it can be presented not a an expansion of the coventant to include gentiles but an actual switch in God's favour from Jew to Gentile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
"This was not a general command to all; but a specific one to the rich man. It was intended to make the man realise that his riches had become an idol to him - and that he needed to get rid of it and prioritise God and Jesus over this idol.
Unfortuntely for that interpretation Jesus clarifies it himself thus:
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Note he doesn't say 'someone who is greedy', nor 'someone who is avaricious', nor 'someone who is miserly' - he says 'someone who is rich'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Why does St Christopher have the head of a dog?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
@disgusted
I say its not a prophesy at all.
I could copy and paste from here, but I will link to it instead.
It's not the last word in scholarship, but it is very readable. The section on Daniel and the 'seventy weeks' is on page 612.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think Jesus taught that the world was about to end. He did teach that Israel was about to face God's wrath and be wiped from the face of the earth. Which incidentally it was within approximately one generation of his death.
I shouldn't have said 'the world was about to end' because what was anticipated was massive upheaval, not termination. I get the impresion that the early church had not settled on an official eschatology, leaving the text obscure and contradictory.
I thoroughly agree the teaching was of an imminent destruction, to be succeededby a new order. I think that new order was supposed to be here on earth and it would be a 'nicer' version of ordinary life, as much as it was fleshed out in any detail at all in the text.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have a pension and some money put aside for retirement.
O ye of little faith! Have you not heard:
Matt 6:34 Do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
I know - a cheap shot! :)
Financial prudence was not a priority for Jesus and the Gospel writers because they believed and taught 'the end of the world was nigh', where 'nigh' could be mere months or even just days away. With that in mind such passages can have their plain and simple meaning. The young man can safely give his wealth away because it's only for a short time.
Sophisticted readings such as "The teaching is one of allegiance, of who or what we put first." are required only because the world didn't end then!
;
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
My guess would be that theists and atheists have very similar morals. A normal person would judge murder as bad and charity as good whether they are theist or atheist.I believe that those who deny God do not have a moral backbone to stand on.
What your mixed metaphor might refer to is that atheists don't have a convenient simple 'Theory of morality' to explain why murder is bad and charity is good. While that might matter to philosophy types, i don't think it matters much IRL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@disgusted
99% of what you 'know' are beliefs that you haven't personally experienced or verified. Do you know the name of Obama's wife? Did you ask her yourself or are you trusting what others have told you?
Even if she told you her name she could be lying. In the end you have to make a judgement of what to believe. I believe her name is Michelle because I judge that more likely than the existence of a conspiracy to conceal her name is Ethel.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It doesn't seem necessary and all the problems there were about where the universe and life came from etc are simply replaced by the problem of where God came from.
Being a human being, I know how human beings think! I can imagine how pre-scientific humans would have imagined gods to explain the world. Indeed, I cannot imagine how they could fail to do so! I have never heard of human society that has not had gods. And until the middle of the C19 there was no real alternative explanation to be had. I think that today we don't know everything. We don't now what 'the truth' is, but we know what it is not.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I view the critical issue as whether 'the ultimate reality' is a conscious entity. By identifying TUR as a god you pin your colours to the mast that it is conscious, and by identifying it as the God of the orthodox church you are go even further beyond what can be justified by logic alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I've never heard anyone say it, ever! (Well, except for 3ru's post, obviously.)
i'm sure there are are theists who think we atheists say things like that all the time, but it just ain't so! Everyone knows It's the grown-up Jesus we hate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I used the word 'gnostic' because the earliest Christians - the ones contemporaneous with Jesus and immediatey after - believed they were in possion of special knowledge (ie 'gnosis') regarding the end of the world. Even when Jesus died His followers were a small minority of Jews who still followed Judaism with the heretical additions about the person Jesus and the end of the current world order.
Much later 'gnosis' was redefined as referring to heresies against Christian doctrine - I obviously didn't mean that! What i tried to do is highlight the cultish nature of Christianity at its origin. It was the exclusivity of Christianity that made 'give to the poor' reasonable advice.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I don't have it 'all worked out' - I am trying to get you to realise that your 'working out' is not necessarily true. I believe it is not true.
I submit we can all - ie atheists and theists - agree that something underpins existence and reality. But no sensible atheist can claim to know what that 'something' is today. The closest we can get is the yet-to-be-discovered 'theory of everything'.
But the ToE is not the atheists god - the ToE is 'just' physics or mathematics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
They're both unending with no escape possible. Don't you think heaven would be boring?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
And God isn't simply reality. God is THE ULTIMATE REALITY. Matter isn't ultimately real. Matter doesn't account for everything. Matter is creation. The Ultimate Reality is Uncreated, Eternally Existing, perfect in every way, and accounts for the entirety of existence.It is a reality that is the year 2019. Next year, this won't be reality. I am not talking about a relative truth. A transient reality. I am talking about that which is always true in every sense. I am talking about God.
You might be talking about mathematics.
And it isn't simply reality. It is THE ULTIMATE REALITY. Matter isn't ultimately real. Matter doesn't account for everything. Matter is creation. The Ultimate Reality is Uncreated, Eternally Existing, perfect in every way, and accounts for the entirety of existence.It is a reality that is the year 2019. Next year, this won't be reality. I am not talking about a relative truth. A transient reality. I am talking about that which is always true in every sense. I am talking about Mathematics.
I don't think atheists would necessarily deny the existence of the thing you describe. The probem is that calling it 'God' implies a lot more than 'reality exists' - it implies that it is the God of the bible that exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
@Mopac
St. John Chrysostom tells us that giving away possessions is the least of Christ's instructions here; following Him in all things is a far greater and more difficult calling.
Good old StJC! Now you can keep your stuff and not feel too bad about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
@Mopac
Matthew 6:28-34
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Mopac - you my not have seen my post#8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
So are you saying that when 3RU7AL said, “Ok, EVERYBODY CHIME IN, on a scale of zero to 100, how much do you HATE THE BABY JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” he was joking?
3ru does't normally use caps or rows of 20 exclamation marks. Of course it was a joke. Not, IMO, one of his best, but you can't get a bullseye every time.
.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I don't believe in Jesus' divinity because I do believe in materialistic universe. I can't prove the universe is materialistic, but I judge the evidence good enough to make that choice.
I believe Jesus was a real person because it seems to me more likely the seed of Christianity was a person rather than a total fiction. I think it's quite likely a human Jesus preached and taught as per the Gospels in Judea 2000 years ago, but I also think the virgin birth, miracles and resurrection are fictional additions.
I repeat - I can't prove anything. I have made a judgement based on the evidence I am aware of. Discussing that evidence make this very long post indeed!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I'm not talking about how or what theists believe or think, I'm talking about a tactic that religious people use in arguments.
I don't think it is just a tactic... as I said, I think it's what some theists really do think motivates atheists. 3RU's post was a lampoon because (this doesn't need saying) atheists don't hate the baby Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I believe Jesus was a real person - it is his divinity I don't believe.You speak as if Jesus were a real person, and not a mythological figure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Jesus taught that the 'end times' were imminent. Thus only the relatively small number of people who adopted Christianity in the short time between when He was speaking and those end times would survive.
Jesus did not expect the world to carry on and His gnostic exclusive cult to become a mass religion. Paul had other ideas.
Created:
-->
@Stronn
I'm almost happy to say 'truth is my god'. I say 'almost' because while I think the truth is incredibly important, I don't worship it or think the truth has any of the properties or qualities normally associated with the word 'god'.
I've often tried to pin down what a god is, in the sense of what sort of thing the word refers to. The big bang created the universe,but the big bang isn't called a god. Historically a 'god' did not have to possess infinite powers. Would YHWH still be a god if he was only massively powerful - powerful enouh to create a universe in 6 days - but not literally infinite in power? Does a god have manifest consciousness? I think so - why worship something that is not aware of it? I assume that idol and sun worshippers imagined their totems were conscious!
So the truth is my 'god', but only in a very loose and figurative sense.
i'm an atheist because I reject the supernatural - I don't reject the supernatural because I am an atheist.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So if you could look at it from my perspective for a moment, you should realize that contradicting me is an exercise in futility because I know what I believe, you don't, and there is not much you can do while disputing on this that would convince me that you aren't simply uneducated.
You seem incapable of seeing things from my perspective! I do not contradict your own beliefs - I try to correct you about the beliefs of people like me who are not stupid or less educated than your good self.
I know what I believe, you don't,
If I don't know what you believe by now I wonder why you bother to post! I know you conflate truth/reality with a particular theistic conception of God. I know you think that rejecting your conception of god is to reject truth and reality.
But that aspect of what you believe is clearly just not so! You have repeatedly said its madness to reject reality - of course it is! But if you think that one cannot reject god without rejecting the reality of tables and chairs or 2+2=4 then you are wrong.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The way things actually are. Truly.
That is my passion too! And so for very many people.
But you have decided 'the way things actually are' resembles what is taught by your church. I think it is resembles what we are taught by observation and reason. The sooner you drop your silly idea that rejecting theism is rejecting reality or truth the sooner you'll stop sounding like a broken record!
The dictionary definition you rely on is only true if you accept theism in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
@Paul
@3RU7AL
Hello Paul.
I see stupid religious people doing this all the time. The strategy is that you insert anger or intense emotions into the non believer (without their consent) in an effort to make them look like they give a crap because they don't. The only one that gives a crap is you dummy.
I don't think you're right.
For many theists God is as obviously real as gravity or the air we breathe. To such people we atheists are denying the undeniable. Put another way, they see us as we see flat-earthers.
Those theists reason that atheists must have ulterior motives for their 'insane' beliefs. Maybe, they conclude, atheists want to sin without conscience, or perhaps atheists hate god.
What theists cannot accept is that we atheists are right there is no god. That would be like you or I accepting the idea that the world is flat has any validity whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
A masterly precis, PGA.
So how do you respond to the charge that few people object to the techniques of higher criticism when they applied to other scriptures?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I won't give a number, but I think it is more likely I will get hit by meteorite. The chances are so small they might as well be zero. IMO, of course.
Created:
Posted in:
I think knowledge is impossible, so everyone is technically an agnostic. But that defeats the object of having labels like theist, atheist and agnostic so i think they should apply according to a person's belief and world-view, not knowledge. Which makes me a dyed-in-the-wool atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
i think that's a job for people who self-identfy as 'agnostic' to say.
Created:
Posted in:
If the consensus was not that Daniel is late those sites wouldn't exist!
My searches so far have not revealed why the Alexander story is discounted, which is embarassing! But you'd only reject it anyway. But it is important and interesting so I will add it to my bucket list of research topics.
Created:
-->
@Stronn
An action is moral to the extent that a reasonable person would expect it to increase the well-being or reduce the suffering of sentient creatures.An action is immoral to the extent that a reasonable person would expect it to decrease the well-being or increase the suffering of sentient creatures.
But can you answer "Why should Stronn be moral?".
Created: