Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have to wonder how rank-and-file Christians feel about it. There are no explicit references to Jesus is in the OT - he appears as a new born baby in the gospels - so Arianism (the belief, not the word) is probably what most Christians worldwide accept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The other fascinating thing is that what is applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT.
I think very few atheists accept a human YHWH existed! Most atheists have very little interest in theological speculation on the nature of Jesus' divinity. In fact i would concede that many 'activistic' atheists' attitude to theology resembles a bull in china shop!
As we have previously discussed, Christian theologians are obliged to attempt the reconciliation of the testments. As I consider them as human documents I think they reflect the societies that produced them - which are hundreds if not thousands of years apart and very different in nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think we disagree on the basic principle, but I see a problem where an unforseen or unforeseeable case means following the letter goes against the spirit. Do you punish someone who does something the rules inadvertently forbid?I believe that all rules should be based on explicit axioms and should not be open to interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Many atheists accept a historical human Jesus existed. Only a minority ascribe to the 'jesus myth' theory.So, there are good, logical reasons to believe in the historical Person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't disagree, but it takes a lot of balls to stand up to a storm of criticism - especially if it threatens to affect the share price. Facebook is too big too be laissez-faire and too big to be micro-managed. DArt get problems with less than a dozen active members; facebook has billions.The rules should be refined so they can be enforced with a minimum of subjective analysis.
but a decision about a facebook post has to be made in seconds at most. It does not follow that what is right for facebook is right for jury trials that can take days or weeks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A less fringy source is
Dr. Nugent appears to hold a sceptical view of the bible which is very common amongst Anglican theologians and clergy here in Britain:
"This means my Christianity is defined by values, spiritual practices, and faith rather than belief in a specific set of doctrinal agreements. Before the 4th Century, when orthodoxy was established, Christianity was characterized by heterodoxy — many different forms of belief.
If the resurrection of Christ didn’t literally happen, that shouldn’t have any bearing on whether life now is worth living or how we live. From my vantage point, where values and practices are the heart of Christianity, the contradiction lies in people like our recent president who think it’s ok to practice torture and yet call themselves Christians. Who would Jesus waterboard? Christ’s torture and execution remind us that we are called to put an end to such practices in human affairs. From the standpoint of my Christianity, right-wing evangelical fundamentalism is really the opposite of what Christ was about. Those who subscribe to an intolerant, arrogant, inhumane form of Christianity are following a religion that is literally antichrist."
It seems to me the OT was written by priests who were rather more YHWHistic than the Hebrew people in general or even their kings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem is that journalists are paid to write stories. They don't mind if it's a story about facebook spiking something or about facebook not spiking something! Either will do to fill a few column inches and pay the rent. It just needs a talent for faking indignation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
The new years special was a distinct improvement, but nowhere near as good as the best xmas specials - "the next doctor" is probably my favourite, but that was 10 years ago!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Whatever they "wanted" would "happen" automatically. It would always be perfect automatically. It would be incapable of error. There would be no need to wipe out mistakes with floods or fire and brimstone.
My thinking is that notions of a deity being literally infinite is a relatively late development. My feeling is that way back when people started to imagine gods they were supposed to be very powerful and magical, but they were not imagined as without limits and restrictions. When YHWH is described as 'almighty' or 'omni-whatever' the writers (not being familiar with modern ides of infinity) were employing flattery rather than being literal.
Originally YHWHists 'knew' their god was but one of many gods, distinguished only by having a special relationship with his 'chosen people'. Baal or Chemosh (eg)were YHWH's peers, but as they were gods of their enemies (ie other Canaanites and the Moabites) so were to despised. But YHWH's support was not unconditional so constant sacrifices and flattery were required to keep YHWH 'sweet' - even so his support was often withdrawn.
The Hebrew would not have thought it logically inconsistent for YHWH to change his mind or decide to cross-out the world and start again (if they understood the concept of 'logially inconsistent' in the first place!). Omniscience - if it meant anything beyond simple flattery - would only mean it was futile keep anything secret from him, as it was for Cain who denied killing Abel. (Gen 4:9-10)
9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”10 The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.
A more sophisticated, quasi-mathematical interpretation of god's supposed infinitude began when (much later) cloistered theologians turned their attentions to the minutiae of scripture, as it was either do professional nit-picking or get a proper job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Why should I explain anything to you when you adopt such a haughty attitude?
Because it is not just to me you would be explaining things. I made the post, but a lot of people would query why you say (or seem to say) it is better you cannot feed your children than you are an atheist. That is not something you can announce like some Oracle and walk away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I will take that as saying you do stand by it.
I continue to think an african mother unable to buy food for her baby has worse poverty than a rich atheist. Or do you mean poverty in a broad sense, i.e. in a way it doesn't actually mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But detachment from God is certainly the worst poverty, and animosity towards God the worst disease
You have a knack for aphorisms - you can make nonsense sound like ancient wisdom!
But do you really want to stand by what you wrote?
I take it you have always had the money to buy food and shoes for your children and you have never suffered long-term chronic pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think the method described in the podcast is pretty close to a hypothetical ideal.
What method in the podacast do you refer to and ideal on what criterion? If your goal is to process millions of new posts, photos and videos per day then a rigid set of rules and with clearly defined exceptions is the only practical solution. i note that the rules have to be rigid in how they are implemented but flexible in that they must be kept under review and subject to amendment. The review and amendment proecedures at facebook seemed to be reactive, ad hoc and based on the personal judgement of senior individuals - there is no consultation with the community at all!
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know how a fact can be 'indisputable'. All one as to is say 'no it isn't!'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) "NTURTTGgTS" (Noumenon, The Ultimate Reality, The Truth, [G]god, The Source) is true (a logical necessity) (THEN) what?
Then.... then we'd need a snappier name for it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you've said so before and I still don't go for it!if a statement or assertion is disputed, it cannot be considered a Fact
Created:
-->
@Grugore
I know that when I die I'll be with my Lord and Savior...Jesus Christ.
And I bet Jesus is really looking forward to spending eternity with you, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In the boring ordinary reality of atheists and scientists the wine stays wine and the wager stays wafer. But in the thrilling and spiritual reality of faith they become blood and flesh.
When you have got you head around that, the difference in what the two camps mean by 'reality' becomes a little clearer!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I mentioned that a while back.
If the idea is that banning shouldn't be public to avoid shaming then the struck-though name is a bit of a give-away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I mean new genetic information should be created because an arm is totally different to a wing.
I think "an arm is totally different to a wing" is debatable!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Not really, but it's best not to argue because they have been known to set fire to anyone who picks the wrong group.Truth. Theists are mind boggling brilliant religious group pickers.
Created:
-->
@janesix
There is an excellent version of the game of life downloadable completely free from here:
Download, unzip and run golly.exe.
lots of fascinating moving, repeating and non-repeating patterns, but what it has to with consciousness I am not clear about!
but I could play with golly for hours and not get bored!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
That is very probably 'the Truth'.That we are all stumbling around in the dark trying to figure things out is more likely the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You know for sure you're right about that?Funny. We Orthodox don't think we are right. We know that God is right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It isn't specific to you or to orthodoxy, and no-one on DAart wants you dead!
What is wanted is for you to stop using faith and start using rationality. Some atheists - such as D and G - get angry that you (and believers in general) seem unwilling to do that. Atheists are also offended by suggestions that because they value rationality they are evil or stupid.
Of course 'atheists' have persecuted believers, and intemperate language is often a precursor of physical violence. But communist regimes attack religion because totalitarian regimes cannot countenance any alternative authority that might challenge their power. but d and g are not Stalinists - at least i don't think they are!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
animals micro-evolve to develop traits they already hold on their DNA, like for example the skin's or fur's color which can change, but a terrestrial animal can't grow wings to fly because this trait should be created at DNA level or be taken from somewhere.
You seem to be saying that to have a wing a critter needs a new set of genes that encodes how to make a wing. The counter argument is that wings aren't made by a new set of genes but by modification of existing genes for front legs or arms.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Not quite; I operate under the assumption that all gods are equally mythical.
Created:
-->
@linate
I think that in a world where belief in powerful gods was unquestionable but knowledge of the world was limited the Noah story would be accepted as simple fact. I don't think it was meant as an alegory or metaphor but as an example of YWH's power.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The fact that other cultures - such as the babylonians - also had a similar legend implies a great flood was something everybody believed had happened in the past. The writers of the bible could not ignore such a famous event so turned it into an episode of their telling of Hebrew history.
Being priests of YWWH they naturally made the story centre on YHWH and a Hebrew patriarch. I don't know if the writers of genesis believed its literal truth, but I strongly suspect they wanted their lay audience to believe it, especially its claim that it was YHWH who was responsible for the famous flood, not some foreign god as the babylonians et al claimed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If there's no evidence against God, but there is evidence for God, the claim "God exists" is more likely true than not. How is that not sufficient to warrant belief that the claim is true?
If you accept that fine tuning is not 100% proof of the gods, would say it makes the existence of the gods 10% probable or 90% probable?
Created:
Posted in:
If there's no evidence against God, but there is evidence for God, the claim "God exists" is more likely true than not. How is that not sufficient to warrant belief that the claim is true?
If you accept that fine tuning is not 100% proof of the gods, would say it makes the existence of the gods 10% probable or 90% probable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Consider a red ball. It is perceived as red and spherical. if its redness is not 'out there', is it being round aslo not 'out there'?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Formal debates arefortwo people... what about the rest of us?
The fine-tuned argument is a challenge to non-theists to come up with an alternative to 'Goddidit'. Anyone who wants to refute 'goddit' has two options a) deny the universe is fine-tuned or b) concede the universe is fine tuned, but not by the gods.
a) involves appeal to the anthropic principle/puddle argument. b) involves an appeal to the hope that future discoveries will reveal a non-supernatural reason why the physical constantsre as they are.
it's all very unfair, because the 'goddidit' crowd get away with just claiming 'godfinetunedit' with no furter detail but insist refuters cross every t and dot every i!
i'm not keen on appeals to the AP, but until/unless a postive theory that explains the value of the physical constants turns up the AP will have to suffice!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
my contribution is to point out that cow farts are not a big problem... 85-90% of cow-based methane emissions are cow burps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I would guess most 'naive' Christians today believe you go to heaven when you die and immeditaely become some sort of angel. That seems to be the official position of Catolicism but not of Protestant denominations.
Protestant doctrine favours a bodily resurrection, which implies to me the afterlife will not be in heaven but here on earth, albeit with a new order in place. Presumbly the 'new world' would resemble the paradise from which man was expelled, with no hard labour, nor any sickness and death. that 'feels more Judaic' to me; souls migrating to eaven feels more Hellenic.
I'm not interested in what is true or justfied by scripture per se, but in how reigious concepts such as 'the afterlife' evolve over time.
,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Not everyone has empathy and compassion.
Not everyone's brain is wired up the same. How do you explain bad people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Western Civilization is still the most advanced culture humans have ever achieved in terms of economics, technology, politics, values, and so on.
I'd say almost all of that progress is the result of abandoming religion and adopting secular rationlism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I know that my God is written on the hearts of all.
i insist you do not know that - youbelieve it.
I believe what you think of as 'God written on the heart' is empathy and compassion written into our brains, and it was written by evolution, not by any god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I take the view that religious people have empathy and compassion which they mistakenly ascribe to their god. That mistake causes them to believe that anyone who does not believe in the same god is incapable of good. It can also result in them believing anything done in the name of their god is automatically good.
The amount of violence done because of those errors since man began is beyond calclation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I put it to you that when we see a picture of a child starving in Africa we feel exactly the same - we want to help. Wanting to help is 'phase 1'. Phase 2 is when we reflect on our reasons why we want to help.
My position is that we want to help because humans have evolved to manifest a degree of empathy and compassion. That causes us to feel that helping is 'good'. note; I wrote 'feel', not 'know' because it hs little to with conscious or rational thought, but more 'poetical' language such feeling could be called 'knowing in one's heart'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Every ethical thing that one can attempt as an end itself is accomplished as a by product of loving God. Be it the way we treat other people, being good to the environment, being happy with life, or competence in the work place. All of these things come from loving God. Humanism and reason cannot do any of these things.
When I make a donation to charity it's because helping people is a good thing to do. How does god come the picture?
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Created:
Posted in:
It was only when that failed to materialise that it was re-interpretted in terms of posthumous survival of souls.While this is a claim, what evidence do you have to support it?
More reading on my part reveals the popular notion that 'the dead go to heaven' is more recent than I thought! It is such a familiar idea I assumed it was ancient, but - appaently - it is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Interesting you went for acceleration and gravity; that's general relativity. GR is hard! Time dilation only needs special relativity.
But mostly it needs diagrams! (or at least a way to write hand gestures)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Humanism is certainly built off of pride in humanity. And that is where its morality comes fro....Love of God is superior to love of humanity.
You are taking the label 'humanism' over-literally!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Not bad. I'not a believer so I have little to say about believers' humility, except to say humility is nothing to boast about!Knowledge is not the same thing as Truth. Our focus is on valuing God above all, who is The Truth, not humans. It is out of our love for God that we love others, and it comes from that, loving The Truth. So while the end result might seem similar or even the same, they are in fact very different. Our love of others comes from a sincere humility. The love of the humanist comes from a pride of humanity. Our love of The Truth comes from a sincere humility. Faith in science comes from a pride of knowledge.
i dispute "the love of a humanist comes from a pride in humanity". Humanists are actutely aware of humanity's flaws - we are individually and collectively stupid, selfish and short-sighted. But while that causes a theist to beat their breast and crave forgiveness, the humanist believes those flaws can be overcome and we have the potential to become so much better. It's not so much pride as shame and hope!
The biggest difference is that humanists know there is no help coming from supernatural entities. You can't eradicate poverty or ignorance by praying. Humanists trust in themselves and in science because there is nothing else. Christians know it's pointless making sacrifices to stone idols yet fail to see what they do is no different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I can believe it.
But whether atheists or theists have killed more people has no bearing on whether a god exists or not.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
According to the koran, Jews and Christians (also 'Sabians') should be ok.
"Indeed, those who have believed [in this Prophet] and those who became Jews and Christians and the Sabians who [truly] believe in God and the Day of Judgment and do good deeds, they shall have their reward with their Lord and they shall neither have fear [for the future] nor any remorse [for the past]". (2:62)
Created:
-->
@Stephen
In my experience a great any muslims are pretty lax!
My problem is with Islam. You know this but just cannot help yourself throwing the word " muslim" into the mix EXACTLY as you have done above.
It seems to me you should take more care to distance yourself from the crude racists of this world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But if you are going to judge unrighteously, note that I associate your atheistic ideology with The Soviet Union, which mercilessly killed millions of my people and tried to eradicate God from the minds of all its people.Something that, frankly, I don't think you would be too far from attempting if you ever were put in charge of things. As far as I'm comcerned, you have a murderous and anti-human ideology. Scientific Atheism is what the Soviets called it. What a joke!
I wonder if many atheists are aware of what happened in Russia between about 1918 and 1941. At that time religion was oppressed and atheism promoted with ruthless brutality. Thousands of people were killed, maimed and imprisoned. It wasn't name calling on the internet - it was mass murder and went on for decades.
it's quite likely that Mopac's grandparents knew exactly what it means to have atheists in charge. Of course we're not Stalinists, are we?
Created: